Smart v. Annucci

Background

Pamela Smart, who represented herself, was confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. In April 2017, officers searched her cell and confiscated pills that Smart said were prescribed Tramadol. Sergeant Corbie performed a field test that recorded a positive result for morphine. Smart alleged that Corbie used and interpreted the test improperly and that prison officials refused her requests for independent testing.

Smart was placed in the Special Housing Unit for about 40 days while disciplinary proceedings were pending. A hearing officer, Eric Gutwein, found her guilty of drug possession and imposed 60 days of keeplock, loss of packages, loss of phone and commissary privileges, and a two-month loss of good time. Smart appealed, but the appeal was affirmed. A state court later ordered a rehearing because the recording of the original hearing was inaudible; the rehearing did not occur because the pills had been destroyed, and prison officials expunged the discipline from her records.

Claims and Motion

Smart’s amended complaint asserted six claims alleging violations of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. She based those claims on the alleged false test result, denial of independent testing, chain-of-custody problems, the absence of photographs and testimony from Sergeant Corbie, errors in the disciplinary report, delays in the hearing, the recording problems, and her confinement. She also asserted a claim based on New York law and Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policy.

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They argued that Smart had not alleged a protected liberty interest, had received all process required by the Constitution, had not shown personal involvement by Annucci, Joseph, or Venettozzi, and that other defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed the claims against Anthony Annucci, Joseph Joseph, and Donald Venettozzi for lack of personal involvement. Smart alleged that Annucci and Joseph failed to respond to her complaints and that Venettozzi denied her administrative appeal. The court held that those allegations did not show that any of those officials, through their own actions, violated the Constitution. Merely being in the supervisory chain or affirming a disciplinary result was not enough.

The court also held that Smart had not plausibly alleged a protected liberty interest. A prisoner must show that a restraint created an unusually serious hardship compared with ordinary prison life. Smart’s approximately 40 days in the Special Housing Unit, without allegations that the conditions were harsher than normal, did not meet that standard. The court likewise found no sufficient allegation that her 60-day keeplock sentence, transfer to a mental-health unit, loss of a prison job, temporary loss of privileges, or missed family visit created a protected liberty interest.

In addition, the court concluded that Smart received constitutionally sufficient process. For her pre-hearing administrative confinement, she received notice of the charges and an opportunity to explain her position, and the prison had reliable evidence—the field-test results and the pills found in her cell—to support the confinement. For the disciplinary hearing, Smart had notice, questioned witnesses, presented documents, submitted evidence about testing problems, and was given a written decision. The court held that the test results, misbehavior report, and testimony satisfied the minimal requirement that some reliable evidence support the conviction. It also held that Smart had no constitutional right to independent outside testing of the pills. The court found that the incorrect date in the disciplinary report did not prevent her from understanding the charges or presenting a defense.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

The court stated that violations of prison regulations or Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives do not by themselves establish a federal constitutional claim. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court also declined to grant leave to amend. Smart had already amended her complaint after receiving notice of the defendants’ proposed dismissal arguments and the court’s observations, and she did not request another amendment or identify additional facts that would cure the pleading problems.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the federal claims, dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice, declined to grant leave to amend, directed the Clerk to close the case, and terminated the pending motion.