Marcus v. Annucci

Background

Anthony Marcus, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. He alleged that the officials violated his constitutional rights during disciplinary proceedings arising from October 2018 charges involving an alleged effort to smuggle heroin into Green Haven Correctional Facility.

A visitor, Angelique Marcus, surrendered a balloon containing a substance that tested positive for 7.5 grams of heroin. Marcus was placed in keeplock and charged with drug possession, smuggling, a facility visitation violation, and a phone-program violation. Eric Gutwein presided over the disciplinary hearing. Marcus pleaded not guilty, had an assistant, called several witnesses, questioned witnesses, presented his account, and listened to recordings of phone calls. Gutwein found him guilty and imposed several penalties, including 45 days of keeplock, 90 days without certain privileges, 180 days without visitation, and a recommendation that two months of good-time credit be taken away.

Marcus later challenged the disciplinary ruling in state court. During that proceeding, the corrections department said the adjudication had been reversed and expunged because it had failed to maintain a complete electronic record of the hearing. The state court dismissed the proceeding as moot.

Procedural History

On January 31, 2022, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. All claims were dismissed except Marcus’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim against Gutwein. After discovery, Gutwein moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court granted that motion.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but unsupported or conclusory assertions are not enough to defeat the motion. The court also considered Marcus’s filings with the additional leniency generally given to people representing themselves.

Analysis

A procedural due-process claim requires the plaintiff to identify both a protected liberty interest and the procedure that allegedly deprived him of that interest.

Protected Liberty Interest

The court had previously determined that the only alleged deprivation that might implicate a protected liberty interest was the 180-day restriction on both contact and non-contact visitation. The court held that the record did not show that this restriction imposed an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life. It also noted that the restriction followed Marcus’s finding of guilt for violating visitation rules.

Marcus also argued that the possible loss of good-time credits created a protected liberty interest. The court rejected that argument because the discipline was reversed and expunged, any loss of already-earned good-time credit was reversed, and the record did not show that Marcus would lose earned credit in the future based on the disciplinary hearing. The court therefore concluded that Marcus had not established a protected liberty interest.

Adequacy of the Hearing Procedures

The court separately held that, even assuming Marcus had a protected liberty interest, he had not shown that Gutwein denied him sufficient process. Prison disciplinary procedures must provide written notice, a reasonable opportunity to call witnesses and present documents, an impartial hearing officer, and a written explanation of the decision. The rights to witnesses and documents are subject to reasonable limits and harmless-error review, meaning that a claimed error does not establish a constitutional violation unless the prisoner shows that it affected the result.

Marcus claimed that Gutwein failed to provide visitor logs, visitor registration forms, phone records, a toxicology test, photographs of the balloon and substance, and other call records. The court found that Marcus had not shown prejudice from the denial of any of these materials. The visitor records would not have supported his proposed account, he already knew relevant information about Angelique Marcus’s visit, and he was able to listen to the relevant phone calls and question the author of the disciplinary report. The court also found that the photographs would not have shown that Marcus was uninvolved and that other documents already informed him that the substance tested positive for heroin.

Marcus also argued that Gutwein improperly prevented Angelique Marcus from testifying. The court did not decide whether denying her testimony was reasonable because Marcus had not shown that her testimony would have changed the result. According to the court, Marcus had been able to testify about his own expectations and intentions, and Angelique Marcus’s written statement confirmed that she had visited him.

Disposition

The court granted Gutwein’s motion for summary judgment as to Marcus’s remaining Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion, close the case, and mail Marcus a copy of the opinion and order. The court did not decide Gutwein’s alternative qualified-immunity argument.