Crane v. X-Parker
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-01413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Michael Crane v. Doctor Parker, Judge Halpern dismissed claims against three defendants but ordered service on Doctor Parker.
Michael Crane’s claims against Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant John Doe were dismissed; the action proceeds toward service on Doctor Parker.
What happened
Michael Crane, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Doctor Parker, Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant John Doe under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during a prison disciplinary hearing.
The court found that Crane did not allege a protected liberty interest because he lost food packages, commissary, recreation, and phone calls for two weeks. The court dismissed his claims against Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant John Doe for failure to state a claim, and declined to hear any related state-law claims against them.
The case continues against Doctor Parker: Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve Parker. The court also referred Crane to a legal clinic and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Crane v. X-Parker · No. 7:23-cv-01413
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
Michael Crane, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed Crane to proceed without prepaying filing fees and screened his amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The amended complaint named Doctor Parker, Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant John Doe. Crane alleged that Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant Doe violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process during a disciplinary hearing. He alleged that, after being found guilty of a disciplinary infraction, he lost food packages, commissary, recreation, and phone calls for two weeks.
Claims Against the Captains and Lieutenant
The court explained that a procedural-due-process claim based on prison discipline requires the plaintiff to identify a protected liberty or property interest and show what process was required before that interest could be taken away. For a convicted prisoner, discipline implicates a protected liberty interest only when it creates an unusually severe and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life.
The court concluded that the two-week loss of food packages, commissary, recreation, and phone calls did not amount to an unusually severe and significant hardship. Crane did not allege that he was placed in restrictive confinement, much less that such confinement lasted more than 101 days. The court therefore dismissed Crane’s Section 1983 claims against Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant John Doe for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Crane may have asserted against those defendants.
Service on Doctor Parker
Because Crane was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Doctor Parker, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Parker. The court stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summons is issued, Crane must request an extension of time.
Legal Clinic and Appeal
The court referred Crane to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases. The court explained that the clinic is a private organization and is not part of the court. The court also directed the Clerk to send Crane an information package.
The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.