Bonie v. Annucci

Background

Nasean Bonie brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony Annucci, Royce Hanns, Correction Officer D. Germano, and Correction Officer “X” Mahon. He alleged that officers falsely accused him of misconduct, that the disciplinary hearing violated his due-process rights, and that officers continued to treat him aggressively. He sought damages and an order barring further harassment.

Bonie alleged that he received a Tier II misbehavior report on December 9, 2018, concerning an incident on December 7. The report charged him with six offenses, including disobeying a direct order, threats, interference, being out of place, a movement violation, and a threat of violence. He pointed to errors in the report, including a date before the incident and the omission of another officer who was allegedly present. He also alleged that he was kept confined to his cell from December 7, 2018, until at least January 13, 2019. The disciplinary report was dismissed, and he was released after receiving written notice on January 15, 2019.

Screening and Claims

Because Bonie was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. It also said that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.

Verbal Abuse

The court held that verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation without injury or damage do not by themselves amount to a constitutional violation. Bonie’s allegation that Mahon raised his voice aggressively and used profanity therefore did not state a claim because Bonie did not allege additional injury or damage.

False Misbehavior Report

The court explained that a prisoner generally has no constitutional right to be free from a false misbehavior report. A false disciplinary charge may support a claim when, for example, it was filed in retaliation for exercising constitutional rights. The court found that Bonie did not allege retaliation. Because the charges were dismissed after a disciplinary hearing, his allegations that the charges were false did not state a claim under § 1983.

Disciplinary Due Process

The court considered whether Bonie was denied due process during the disciplinary proceedings. A due-process claim requires a protected liberty or property interest and a determination of what process was required before that interest could be taken away. For prison discipline, confinement generally must impose an unusually severe hardship compared with ordinary prison life before a protected liberty interest arises.

The court found that Bonie’s allegation of approximately 30 days in “keep lock” was insufficient, by itself, to show a protected liberty interest. He also did not allege that the confinement conditions were unusually restrictive. The court therefore stated that it appeared Bonie had not been deprived of a liberty interest requiring due-process protection.

Order

The court granted Bonie leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It directed him to provide a short and plain statement identifying each defendant’s conduct, the relevant dates and locations, how his rights were violated, his injuries, and the relief requested. The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court warned that failure to amend within the allowed time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court denied Bonie’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel without prejudice to renewing that request later. No summons would issue at that time.