Abdullah v. Roach

• Decision Date: 04 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-SP-293.,94-SP-293.
• Parties: Muhammad ABDULLAH, Appellant, v. David ROACH, et al., Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

668 A.2d 801

Muhammad ABDULLAH, Appellant, v. David ROACH, et al., Appellees.

No. 94-SP-293.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued October 19, 1995.

Decided December 4, 1995.

Hastings Jones, with whom Robert C. Hauhart, Staff Attorneys, Public Defender Service, Washington, DC, was on the brief, for appellant.

Mary L. Wilson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with whom Erias Hyman, Acting Corporation Counsel at the time the brief was filed, and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, were on the brief for appellees.

Before FERREN, SCHWELB, and REID, Associate Judges.

SCHWELB, Associate Judge:

The trial court denied Muhammad Abdullah's petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing on the ground that Abdullah failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, Abdullah contends that his petition fairly alleged that correctional officials had deprived him of rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and by local law. We hold that Abdullah has sufficiently alleged violations of the Lorton Regulations Approval Act of 1982 (LRAA), codified at 28 DCMR §§ 500 et seq. (1987). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

In 1981, Abdullah was convicted of murder while armed, armed robbery, and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to aggregate terms of imprisonment of 23 years to life. He has been incarcerated since that time.

On October 13, 1993, Abdullah filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (the initial petition) alleging that in July of that year, he had been placed in "involuntary protective custody," which is a form of "administrative segregation," because authorities at Lorton claimed that an anonymous note threatening his safety had been delivered to a correctional officer. According to Abdullah's petition, a prisoner in administrative segregation is confined in a control cell for up to twenty-three hours per day, with only brief periods of release for showers and recreation.¹ Abdullah alleged that on August 12, 1993, Lorton's Housing Board convened a hearing with respect to his confinement. He asserted that no threatening note was produced at that hearing. Abdullah averred that the Housing Board found no factual basis for continuing administrative segregation, and that the Board recommended that Abdullah be returned to "Open Population." The Board's decision, according to Abdullah, was approved by David Roach, the Administrator of Lorton's Maximum Security Unit.

Notwithstanding the foregoing recommendation, Abdullah claimed in his petition that he was not released from administrative segregation. On August 27, 1993, in a letter to Administrator Roach, Abdullah's attorney requested that Abdullah be returned to Open Population "when the next vacancy occurs." On September 10, 1993, Roach responded that Abdullah had been "approved" for Cellblock Seven² but that "he will not be placed in front of other residents on the list who are also awaiting bed space in Cellblock Seven."

Dissatisfied with this response, Abdullah's attorney filed the initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court. Administrator Roach and Walter B. Ridley, the Director of the Department of Corrections (DOC), were named as respondents. The petition alleged that the correctional authorities' failure to return Abdullah to Open Population violated his rights under the Constitution and under District of Columbia law. A Superior Court judge issued an order directing the respondents to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. See D.C.Code § 16-1901(a) (1989). The two correctional officials filed a response in which they contended that Abdullah's claim was moot because he was no longer in administrative segregation. The respondents also asserted that the petition failed to state a claim for relief under the Constitution, and they denied that they had failed to comply with the LRAA.

On December 8, 1993, Abdullah filed an amended petition. To his original allegations, he added a claim that, while his initial petition was pending, he had been falsely charged with threatening Joyce Pittman, the "unit manager" for the cellblock in which Abdullah was being held, and that he had been found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding in which several of his rights under the LRAA were allegedly violated. See 28 DCMR §§ 510.1-510.6 Abdullah asserted that his alleged threat to Ms. Pittman was said to have occurred on October 5, 1993, but that, in violation of the LRAA, no disciplinary report was filed until October 15, two days after the filing of his initial habeas corpus petition. As a result of the finding that he was guilty of the new charge, Abdullah was transferred to Maximum Security status and placed in punitive "adjustment segregation."

Abdullah claimed in his amended petition that these false charges were brought against him in retaliation for his exercise of his constitutional right to request judicial relief. He further alleged that correctional officials had violated the LRAA, inter alia, by intimidating witnesses who would have testified favorably to Abdullah and by interfering with the attempts by Abdullah's attorney to interview and present exculpatory witnesses.

A second Order to Show Cause was issued on January 5, 1994. On January 26, 1994, the respondents filed a new response in which they substantially reiterated their initial position. On February 5, 1994, the trial judge dismissed the amended petition on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On February 15, 1994, Abdullah moved pursuant to Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The trial judge denied that motion on the day that it was filed. This timely appeal followed.

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION

A. Scope of Appellate Review.

The judge's ruling that the amended petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted presents a question of law, and our review is therefore de novo. Johnson-El v. District of Columbia, 579 A.2d 163, 166 (D.C.1990). A pleading "should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it is beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The allegations in the petition must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the petitioner. Id.

Both parties supplemented their pleadings with exhibits, and Abdullah claims that the respondents' demand that the amended petition be dismissed should therefore have been treated as a motion for summary judgment. See Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 55 (D.C.1993). The question whether summary judgment was properly granted is also one of law, and we review de novo a decision granting such relief. See Osei-Kuffnor v. Argana, 618 A.2d 712, 713 (D.C.1993). On summary judgment, we review the record independently and view it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Colbert v. Georgetown Univ., 641 A.2d 469, 472 (D.C.1994) (en banc). A party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(c).

The trial judge's brief order of dismissal was framed in terms of what he perceived to be the legal insufficiency of the amended petition, standing alone. It is unclear whether the judge considered extrinsic materials in reaching his decision. The question whether we are dealing here with a dismissal for failure to state a claim or an order granting summary judgment, however, is of no consequence. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the order of dismissal cannot stand, regardless of whether it was issued pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 of the Superior Court's Civil Rules.

B. Mootness and Justiciability.

Respondents contended in the trial court that Abdullah's claim that he was entitled to release from administrative segregation was moot "because he is presently being held in adjustment segregation" and because his status "has been repeatedly reviewed administratively...." It does appear that the respondents' failure to release Abdullah from administrative segregation in August 1993 no longer presents a live controversy. It is undisputed that as a result of the subsequent disciplinary proceedings which Abdullah challenged in his amended petition, his status was changed from involuntary protective custody in administrative segregation to the more punitive category of adjustment segregation. The issues raised by Abdullah, however, may fairly be characterized as "capable of repetition, yet evading review." See, e.g., In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235, 1242 (D.C. 1990) (en banc). Accordingly, the District now joins Abdullah in asking this court to decide the appeal on the merits, and we agree that it is prudent for the court to do so.³

C. The LRAA.

(1) The statute and regulations.

The District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) has been authorized by statute to promulgate rules and regulations which govern the District's correctional facilities. D.C.Code § 24-442 (1989). The promulgation of these rules and regulations shall be "with the approval of the Council of the District of Columbia." Id.

Pursuant to the foregoing authority, DOC has issued regulations governing disciplinary proceedings and related matters at Lorton and other facilities. These regulations are now codified in 28 DCMR §§ 500-531 (1987). The Council approved these regulations by enacting the LRAA of 1982. 29 D.C.Reg. 3484 (1982).

We have previously held, and reiterate today, that DOC is bound by its own validly promulgated regulations, specifically including the LRAA. Vaughn v. United States, 598 A.2d 425, 433 (D.C.1991). "The LRAA has a binding effect on even the most senior correctional...