Brown v. Venettozi
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-02628-KMK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In Brown v. Venettozi, Judge Karas granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing some claims but allowing due-process claims to proceed.
Brown’s claims against Carey, Crofoot, and Venettozi, and his claims concerning an unfair hearing and insufficient evidence, were dismissed with prejudice. His due-process and adequate-assistance claims against Gutwein and Coccuzza may proceed.
What happened
In Brown v. Venettozi, Johnny B. Brown, representing himself, alleged that prison officials wrongly disciplined him and confined him in a special housing unit for 210 days after accusing him of starting a fight. He said officials denied him requested video, documents, and witness testimony during the disciplinary hearing.
The court dismissed the claims against Carey, Crofoot, and Venettozi, as well as claims concerning an unfair hearing officer and a guilty finding unsupported by reliable evidence. But the court allowed Brown’s claims against Gutwein and Coccuzza to continue because the alleged failures to provide evidence and assistance could have denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice, while Brown may proceed against Gutwein and Coccuzza on his due-process claim, including the claim that he was denied adequate assistance.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Venettozi · No. 7:18-cv-02628-KMK
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
Johnny B. Brown, a self-represented plaintiff who was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, sued Donald Venettozi, J. Crofoot, Captain Carey, E. Gutwein, and R. Coccuzza under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials accused him of instigating an inmate fight at Green Haven Correctional Facility, found him guilty at a disciplinary hearing, and imposed 210 days in special housing, along with other penalties.
Brown alleged that he requested inmate and corrections-officer witnesses, records, memoranda, and video footage. He claimed that Coccuzza did not fully document or carry out his requests, that Gutwein denied requests for a new assistant and additional witnesses, and that the requested video was not sought until after it no longer existed. Brown also alleged that his confinement involved harsh conditions, including 23-hour-a-day isolation, limited showers, vermin, loss of property and hygiene products, and restraints that prevented exercise.
The disciplinary decision was later administratively reversed, and references to the misconduct were expunged from Brown’s records. The opinion states that this occurred after Brown filed a state-court proceeding but before that proceeding was decided on the merits, and after Brown had served the full 210-day penalty.
Defendants’ arguments and prior ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, that Brown had not adequately alleged due-process violations or Venettozi’s personal involvement, and that they were protected by qualified immunity.
The court relied on its 2019 opinion in the same case to dismiss claims that Brown had not materially improved through his amended complaint. It dismissed claims against Carey, Crofoot, and Venettozi for the reasons previously identified. The court also dismissed Brown’s new allegations about an off-the-record conversation involving Crofoot and Gutwein because they were too speculative. It rejected Brown’s attempt to rely on a separate theory of supervisory liability against Venettozi, explaining that Brown had not alleged conduct by Venettozi supporting liability apart from his handling of the appeal. The court dismissed the claims against Venettozi on qualified-immunity grounds and did not decide the personal-involvement issue.
Due-process claims against Gutwein and Coccuzza
To state a procedural due-process claim, Brown had to plausibly allege both a protected liberty interest and an insufficient process that caused its deprivation. The court concluded that the alleged 210-day confinement, together with the described conditions beyond ordinary special-housing conditions, adequately alleged a protected liberty interest.
The court found no adequate basis at the pleading stage for claims that Brown lacked written notice of the charges, a written decision, or a decision based on some evidence. It also dismissed allegations concerning Gutwein’s bias and the failure to provide video of the hearing room.
The court allowed Brown to proceed on allegations that:
- Coccuzza and Gutwein failed to provide video footage of the yard at the time of the incident;
- Coccuzza and Gutwein failed to provide requested documents, including the yard log book, unusual-incident reports, and to/from memoranda; and
- Gutwein failed to obtain testimony from four corrections officers who were allegedly on duty in the yard.
The court held that, based on the pleadings, it could not conclude that these failures were harmless. The opinion also states that Gutwein and Coccuzza’s qualified-immunity arguments were not meaningfully applied to the facts, so the court declined to decide that issue at that time. The court noted that the disciplinary record was incomplete and that missing pages could provide explanations for excluding evidence or testimony at a later stage.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims against Carey, Crofoot, and Venettozi. It also dismissed Brown’s claims that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing officer and that he was found guilty without reliable supporting evidence. The opinion expressly states that these dismissals were with prejudice. Brown may proceed against Gutwein and Coccuzza on his due-process claim, including his claim that he was denied adequate assistance. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Brown a copy of the opinion, and the court scheduled a later status conference.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.