Roque v. Warden, Connecticut Correctional Inst., Somers

Decision Date03 June 1980
Citation434 A.2d 348,181 Conn. 85
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesLuis ROQUE v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, SOMERS.

Kimball H. Hunt, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Stephen J. O'Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carol R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).

Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS and HEALEY, JJ.

ARTHUR H. HEALEY, Associate Justice.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding instituted by the plaintiff, Luis Roque, an inmate at the Somers correctional institution, in which he challenges the constitutionality of certain procedures by which he was required to serve four days in punitive segregation and was deprived of ninety days of good time. These sanctions were imposed as the result of his being found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing of the charges of giving false information and attempt to commit riot, as defined in the prison disciplinary rules. In his amended application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Superior Court, he sought the restoration of the loss of the ninety days good time, the expunging from his record of all reference to the charges, hearing and punishment and "such other relief as law and equity may provide." The Superior Court dismissed the application for the writ and this appeal followed. 1

On appeal, the plaintiff directs several claims of error to the court's finding. 2 We have corrected the finding where warranted and note our corrections in the opinion. The finding discloses the following relevant facts: The plaintiff has been confined to the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Somers since June 1, 1973. He is serving time on a number of sentences, which result in an effective sentence of not less than twenty and not more than thirty years. These sentences result from convictions of two counts of assault with intent to murder, one count of second degree assault, one count of escape from a correctional institution and one count of escape from custody. On admission to Somers, all inmates are orientated by the presentation of a general overview of all of the activities, programs, rules and regulations of that institution. The orientation includes giving the inmates copies of the existing rules and regulations. The inmates are advised that the rules are updated from time to time and that such updates would appear on the bulletin boards and in the Weekly Scene, a newspaper published and distributed weekly to inmates at Somers. State's Exhibit C is a copy of the disciplinary rules and procedures for inmates at Somers. These rules were published in the July 6, 1974 issue of the Weekly Scene and were distributed to each inmate at Somers, including the plaintiff, that same month.

The incident generating the prison disciplinary proceedings which underlie this appeal took place on July 1, 1976, at about 2:40 p.m. The plaintiff, while returning from his work area, was stopped for a routine check and search by a correctional officer. In the course of this search, seven copies of a document later admitted in evidence as plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and six copies of a document later admitted in evidence as state's Exhibit A were found on his person.

Exhibit A contains two typewritten paragraphs; the first is in English and the second is a translation of the first paragraph into Spanish. This exhibit reads in part: "The Revolutionary Coalition, which is a multiracial prisoners collective in the federal system, is calling for all prisoners in the U.S. to boycott all presentations and activities (including meals) on July 4, 1976.... By this boycott we hope to illustrate the contradictions between America's stated goal of freedom and its actual practice of enslavement and oppression.... When the prisoners stand in unity the prison doors will open. America must realize that its unhuman system must be changed, while we prisoners must realize that it is we who must do the changing." Exhibit 1, which was considerably longer, focused on the evils of the "capitalist system" and called for unity among prisoners to accomplish the goal of "destroying this whole rotten system." It continues, "This unity will be built only through struggle, primarily by fighting against the oppressive conditions we deal with every day," and concludes, "(I)f we all united to fight the common enemy, no oppressive system, no matter how strong, will be able to resist the will of the people in their revolutionary struggle."

The documents were taken to the office of Alexander Cybulski, the assistant warden in charge of operations at Somers. In that capacity Cybulski was responsible for the control and custody of the entire inmate population as well as for the overall security of that institution. His correctional experience totalled fifteen years cumulatively as a correctional counselor, correctional counselor supervisor, acting assistant warden of treatment and assistant warden, his present position. After Cybulski had read the copies of Exhibit A and Exhibit 1, the plaintiff was brought to Cybulski's office to explain what he intended to do with the documents. The plaintiff told Cybulski that he had typed the copies of Exhibit 1 and intended to distribute them to other inmates and that the copies of Exhibit A had been given to him by another inmate to read and distribute if he wished. He agreed that, if it were determined that Exhibit A was typed utilizing his work area typewriter, he alone was responsible for preparing the copies of that exhibit. A typing sample later taken from the typewriter used by the plaintiff in his work area matched the typing on Exhibit A.

On July 2, 1976, the plaintiff was given a disciplinary report 3 that was prepared by Cybulski. The report charged the plaintiff with having committed the prison offenses of "Attempt to Commit Riot" and "Giving False Information." 4 "Attempt to commit riot" is a class A offense punishable by a loss of up to ninety days of "good time" credits 5 and/or twenty days in punitive segregation, and "giving false information" is a class B offense punishable by a loss of up to sixty days of good time and/or ten days of punitive segregation.

On July 6, 1976, a hearing was conducted by the Somers disciplinary board on these charges, at which time the plaintiff pleaded not guilty to both charges. Captain John Plonski, who had twenty-three years of experience as a correctional officer, was the chairman of the board which heard the charges. Prior to the hearing, Captain Plonski had been approached by inmates who had informed him that they were being coerced not to participate in the July 4 activities. At the hearing the plaintiff was informed of the offenses charged, to which he pleaded not guilty, and was presented with the evidence before the board. The plaintiff was not informed of the reports from other inmates, 6 and the committee did not consider these reports in its deliberations. The only evidence before the board consisted of the two documents taken from the plaintiff on July 1, 1976, and the disciplinary report given to the plaintiff by Cybulski on July 2, 1976. Each member of the committee asked the plaintiff if he had any explanation for his possession of the documents taken from him on July 1, 1976, but he offered none. Although each member of the committee gave the plaintiff ample opportunity to make a statement, he chose not to. 7 The board found the plaintiff guilty of both charges and, pursuant to prison disciplinary procedure, recommended to John Manson, 8 the Connecticut commissioner of correction, that the plaintiff spend ten days in punitive segregation 9 and that he be deprived of ninety days good time. At the direction of the board, a summary of its fact findings and the recommendation of disciplinary action was prepared by the "reporter" and a copy was given to the plaintiff. Commissioner Manson reviewed and approved the board's findings of guilt on both charges. This petition followed.

The plaintiff claims that the disciplinary board proceedings violated his due process rights under the federal constitution because of the board's failure to provide him with a written statement adequately setting out (1) the evidence relied on at the hearing and (2) the criteria applied and reasons for the disciplinary action taken. He also claims that he has a right to possess and distribute the documents in question that is protected by the first amendment to the federal constitution and that the board's action violated that right. 10 The trial court found no such violations and dismissed the petition.

I

As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), "a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime," although "his rights may be diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional environment." Prisoners retain rights under the due process clause; see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); but these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the nature of the institution to which they have been lawfully committed. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S., 556, 94 S.Ct., 2974. "Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). The requirements of due process in prison disciplinary proceedings must be ascertained in light of the need for a "mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application." Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 318 U.S., 556, 94 S.Ct., 2975.

In Wolff, the Supreme Court held that a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Anthony A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 17 d4 Junho d4 2021
    ...... * SC 20499 Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued December 10, 2020 Officially released ... and was being detained at New Haven Correctional Center. .. Because of the petitioner's new ... the [disciplinary] decision to the deputy warden, who was not at the original hearing"). Finally, ... of an unincarcerated individual"); Roque v. Warden , 181 Conn. 85, 93, 434 A.2d 348 ......
  • Johnson v. Manson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 28 d2 Maio d2 1985
    ....... Supreme Court of Connecticut. . Argued Feb. 7, 1985. . Decided May 28, 1985. ... "for time served in an out of state correctional institution while awaiting extradition to ...Warden, 169 Conn. 247, 363 A.2d 121 (1975), in which we ...1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Roque v. Warden, 181 Conn. 85, 434 A.2d 348 (1980). ......
  • Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 20 d2 Janeiro d2 1987
    ....... No. 12655. . Supreme Court of Connecticut. . Argued Nov. 5, 1986. . Decided Jan. 20, 1987. ... Roque v. Warden, 181 Conn. 85, 86-87 n. 2, 434 A.2d 348 ......
  • Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 13 d2 Março d2 2012
    ......COLEMAN. No. 18721. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued Oct. 25, 2011.Decided March 13, 2012. . ... 30, 2012, at the McDougall–Walker correctional institution following his convictions on charges ...; internal quotation marks omitted.) Roque v. Warden, 181 Conn. 85, 97, 434 A.2d 348 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT