Mena v. Gutwein

Background

Geraldo Mena, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Commission Hearing Officer Gutwein, Sergeant F. Ortega, and Tier Hearing Assistant MaryAnn Holland violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process during a prison disciplinary hearing.

Mena alleged that on August 29, 2018, he was falsely accused of assaulting Correction Officer H. Algarin and was placed in the special housing unit. Ortega allegedly filed a misbehavior report charging Mena with assaulting staff, violent conduct, interference with an employee, and possessing a weapon.

Before the September 6, 2018, disciplinary hearing, Mena gave Holland a list of documents and witnesses he wanted investigated. He alleged that Holland provided only some of the requested materials and did not interview the potential witnesses. Mena further alleged that Gutwein did not provide the remaining documents, did not call certain witnesses, denied his request for a new hearing assistant, and entered a guilty disposition that was not supported by evidence. Mena received 730 days in special housing, 730 days without commissary, packages, or phone privileges, and 24 months’ loss of good-time credit. He alleged that he remained in special housing for 181 days. The hearing disposition was administratively reversed on February 6, 2019.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff. The court also applies less strict pleading standards to a person representing himself, but conclusory statements alone are not enough.

The court declined to consider several documents defendants submitted with the motion because the complaint did not sufficiently refer to or rely on them. Those documents included the misbehavior report, a notice of assistance, a hearing record sheet, and a document concerning the hearing disposition.

Due Process Claims

The court explained that a procedural due process claim requires a protected liberty interest and an inadequate process that caused the deprivation. Prison discipline can create a protected liberty interest when it imposes an unusual and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life. Because Mena alleged 181 days in special housing, the court held that the claim could not be dismissed at this early stage without a more developed record about the conditions of confinement.

The court held that Mena plausibly alleged an inadequate process claim against Holland. Prisoners in special housing have a right to meaningful assistance in disciplinary proceedings, including reasonable investigative help, gathering evidence, obtaining documents, and interviewing witnesses. Mena alleged that Holland did not interview his identified witnesses and failed to provide many requested documents.

The court also held that Mena plausibly alleged a claim against Gutwein. Mena alleged that Gutwein failed to provide documents, failed to call witnesses who would have supported Mena’s defense, and did not provide a replacement assistant after being told about Holland’s alleged failures. Mena also alleged that the guilty disposition was not supported by the required minimum amount of evidence.

The court dismissed the claim against Ortega. A prisoner generally has no constitutional right to be free from a false misbehavior report by itself. Because Mena did not allege that Ortega’s report was connected to additional unlawful conduct, such as retaliation for exercising a constitutional right, the allegations against Ortega were legally insufficient.

Qualified Immunity

Gutwein and Holland also argued that qualified immunity protected them from the claims. Qualified immunity can protect government officials when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The court declined to grant that protection at the motion-to-dismiss stage because Mena plausibly alleged violations of clearly established rights and the complaint did not show that their conduct was objectively reasonable. The court stated that the qualified-immunity argument could be raised later, if appropriate, on a motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Mena’s procedural due process claims against Gutwein and Holland may proceed. Mena’s procedural due process claim against Ortega was dismissed, and Ortega was terminated from the docket. Gutwein and Holland were ordered to answer the complaint by September 22, 2020. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee waiver status for an appeal.