Casanova v. Maldonado

Background

Jonathan Jose Casanova, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The claims addressed events during a September 16, 2014 lockdown and cell search at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

Earlier rulings dismissed claims against several defendants, while leaving claims against Correction Officer Valentin, RN W. Miller, Correction Officer Maldonado, Correction Officer Flack, and Hearing Officer A.D.S.P. O’Neill. The motion decided in this opinion was filed on behalf of Valentin, Miller, and O’Neill. Casanova did not file a conventional opposition. Because the record showed confusion about the court’s instructions, the court treated his earlier motion for default judgment and its supporting brief as his opposition to summary judgment.

Claims and Analysis

Valentin. Casanova claimed that Valentin failed to intervene to prevent excessive force by other officers. The court explained that an officer can be liable for failing to intervene if the officer saw, or had reason to know about, unconstitutional force and had a realistic opportunity to stop it. Even assuming Valentin opened Casanova’s cell door, the court found no evidence that she knew or should have known beforehand that excessive force would be used. The record also did not show that she could see what happened inside the cell or that sounds from outside the cell would have alerted her to unconstitutional force. The court therefore granted Valentin’s motion for summary judgment.

Miller. Casanova claimed that Miller was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court applied a two-part test: the medical condition or deprivation must be sufficiently serious, and the official must have known about and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Casanova described bumps, back pain, a headache, and superficial scratches. The court concluded that these injuries were not sufficiently serious on the record. It also found that Miller’s examination showed no visible injury, bruising, redness, or swelling, and that Miller advised Casanova that he could follow up with his primary medical provider if necessary. The court found no evidence that Miller disregarded a serious medical need and granted Miller’s motion for summary judgment.

O’Neill. Casanova claimed that O’Neill violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process during the disciplinary hearing. The court assumed, without deciding, that the time Casanova spent in the Special Housing Unit was enough to create a protected liberty interest. It then concluded that Casanova received the required process: advance notice of the charges, an opportunity to call and question witnesses, access to requested documents except for portions of an incident report, an opportunity to testify and object, assistance in preparing for the hearing, adjournments to develop the record, and a written decision identifying the evidence relied upon. The court also found that Casanova’s generalized claim of hearing-officer bias did not create a genuine factual dispute. The court granted O’Neill’s motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the claims against Valentin, Miller, and O’Neill. It directed the clerk to terminate those three defendants as parties. The court stated that claims against Maldonado and Flack remained and scheduled a telephone conference to discuss next steps and trial preparation.