Aramas v. Pollizzi

Background

Luis Aramas brought Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against Anthony Polizzi, Donald Venettozzi, and Donna Zaltsman. Aramas alleged that Polizzi, the hearing officer, improperly handled witnesses and documentary evidence; that Zaltsman was ineffective as an employee assistant; and that Venettozzi failed to address his constitutional complaints. The alleged misconduct involved drug possession, smuggling, a call-forwarding or third-party-call violation, and a visiting violation.

Aramas was moved to the Special Housing Unit after the October 17, 2015 incidents. After a disciplinary hearing that began on October 27 and ended on December 15, 2015, he was found guilty and received 45 days in the Special Housing Unit, along with losses of packages, commissary, phone access, and visitation. Because he had already been held there, his total Special Housing Unit confinement was 104 days. The disciplinary record was later reversed and expunged.

Aramas described reduced food portions, fewer showers, one hour of recreation each day, limited social interaction, inadequate warm clothing, restricted law-library access, and emotional distress. He also said that his then-wife filed for divorce after the restrictions and confinement.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome. The court reviewed the record in the light most favorable to Aramas, including admissible facts in his verified complaint, despite his failure to submit a timely opposition.

For a prison due-process claim, a plaintiff must show both a protected liberty interest and an insufficient process-related deprivation. The court explained that New York law creates a liberty interest in avoiding Special Housing Unit confinement, but only when the confinement creates an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life.

The court held that Aramas’s evidence did not show conditions more severe than ordinary Special Housing Unit conditions. It found that his complaints about food, showers, recreation, clothing, law-library access, lost privileges, and generalized psychological suffering were insufficient to establish the required hardship for his 104-day confinement. Because Aramas did not produce admissible evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the conditions were unusually severe, the court granted the defendants’ motion on the due-process claims.

As to Venettozzi, the court found that the complaint and supporting materials showed only that he issued memoranda reversing and expunging the disciplinary determination and notifying Aramas. The record did not establish that Venettozzi participated in the hearing or punishment. The court therefore concluded that the evidence did not show the personal involvement required for liability. It also held that, even assuming Venettozzi had affirmed the disciplinary decision, he was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was unsettled about whether an appeal officer could be liable for failing to reverse an allegedly unconstitutional disciplinary hearing.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate the pending motion, mail the opinion to Aramas, and close the case.