Urena v. Annucci

Background

Christian Urena, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to seek federal review of unlawful custody. The opinion states that he was not challenging his conviction, sentence, or the effectiveness of his legal representation. Instead, he challenged penalties resulting from a disciplinary hearing during his confinement at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

Urena had been charged with possessing razor blades and gang material after a search of his cell. He received two misbehavior reports, and a disciplinary hearing was conducted by Hearing Officer Bruce Levine. Urena was assisted by Assistant B. Silverio and requested documents. He also requested testimony from three inmates, but each refused and submitted a form stating that the inmate knew nothing about the incident.

The hearing officer found Urena guilty of all charges and imposed eight months in the Special Housing Unit, loss of eight months of good-time credit, and loss of package, commissary, and telephone privileges for the same period. The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision denied Urena’s administrative appeal and affirmed the penalty on February 19, 2013.

Claims and Report

Urena asserted five grounds: the evidence was insufficient; he was denied the ability to prepare a defense and challenge the evidence; his due-process rights were violated when he was charged with and found guilty of smuggling unlawful items; the hearing officer failed to independently assess the credibility of an informant whose information supported the cell search; and he was denied due process because he was not allowed to be present during the search.

Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety. The district court stated that Urena filed no objections. When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record rather than conducting a full reconsideration of the disputed issues.

The district court summarized the recommendation as concluding that Urena’s claims lacked merit. It stated that, given Urena’s sentence, any loss of good-time credit from the disciplinary penalty was meaningless. It also stated that Urena’s claims concerning loss of privileges were more appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute used for certain civil-rights claims. The opinion notes that Urena had previously brought a related civil-rights lawsuit making similar allegations and that the earlier lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety. The opinion does not reproduce the earlier case’s party caption.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case.

The court also determined that Urena had not made the substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation required for a certificate of appealability, so no certificate would issue. It further certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith and denied special payment-status treatment for purposes of an appeal.

The opinion contains inconsistent dates for the Report and Recommendation: the opening section identifies it as dated September 25, 2020, while the discussion says it was issued September 25, 2019.