Frazier v. Coughlin

Decision Date10 April 1996
Docket NumberD,No. 562,562
Citation81 F.3d 313
PartiesCharles FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections for New York; Robert Mitchell, Superintendent of Eastern New York Correctional Facility; George Ellison, Lieutenant, an Employee of the New York State Department of Corrections for New York State; John Doe, and/or Jane Doe, Employee of the New York State Department of Corrections; R.J. Cunningham, Deputy Superintendent of Security at Eastern New York Correctional Facility; Louis F. Mann, Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility; Robert Cunningham, Senior Counselor and Program Coordinator for The Close Supervision Unit (CSU) at Shawangunk Correctional Facility; John Doe, II, A Lieutenant at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 94-2768.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Neal P. McCurn, District Judge, dismissing plaintiff's claims that he was deprived of his right to procedural due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986.

Charles Frazier, Wallkill, NY, Pro Se.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY (Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General, Peter R. Crary, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Before JACOBS, LEVAL and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Barnett-Mulligan, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Charles Frazier, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McCurn, J.) that granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c). Frazier's pro se complaint, made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, alleges that the defendants deprived Frazier of his right to procedural due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by, inter alia, (i) depriving him of the opportunity to challenge his pre-hearing confinement to the prison's Special Housing Unit; (ii) placing him in the prison's Close Supervision Unit based on erroneous charges; (iii) improperly conducting the hearing at which it was determined to place him in the Close Supervision Unit; and (iv) placing erroneous information in his prison file. Frazier also asserts a claim against defendant Coughlin, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, for failing to intervene on his behalf. A bench trial was conducted, and at the close of the evidence the district court dismissed all of Frazier's claims.

We affirm the dismissal of Frazier's claims that his assignment to the Close Supervision Unit and the Special Housing Unit violated his constitutional rights, on the ground that Frazier has no protected liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population under Sandin v. Conner, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). We affirm the dismissal of Frazier's other claims for the reasons provided by the district court.

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 1992, staff members of the Eastern New York Correctional Facility discovered eight hacksaw blades concealed in an envelope addressed to inmate Frazier. Frazier was charged with violating prison regulations for being the intended recipient of those hacksaw blades. Defendant R.J. Cunningham, a deputy superintendent at Eastern New York, directed that Frazier be transferred (pending an investigation) from the general prison population to the Special Housing Unit (the "SHU"), a prison block that consists of several single-occupancy cells. An inmate in the SHU is confined to his cell for up to twenty-three hours per day, has limited recreational and vocational opportunities, and has little or no contact with other prisoners. According to New York prison regulations, an inmate may be assigned to the SHU while awaiting disposition of disciplinary proceedings. N.Y. Comp.Codes. R. & Regs. tit. 7, § 301.6(a)(1) (1995).

In a search of Frazier's cell that was conducted later that day, corrections officers found various items of contraband. Charges were filed against Frazier for violating prison regulations against the possession of contraband. Defendant George Ellison, a lieutenant at Eastern New York, set a date for a hearing on the charges pertaining to the hacksaw blades and the contraband, and determined that Frazier should remain in the SHU pending the hearing. On March 2, 1992, Frazier was transferred from the SHU at Eastern New York to the SHU at Shawangunk prison.

A hearing on the charges against Frazier was held on March 6, 1992, and was concluded on March 10, 1992. Frazier was found guilty of the charges pertaining to the contraband, but not guilty of the charges relating to the hacksaw blades. Frazier was penalized by 30 days of confinement to his cell (not the SHU) and 30 days loss of commissary, recreation, package and phone privileges. That sentence was made retroactive to February 28.

On the day the hearing concluded, Superintendent Mann of the Shawangunk prison directed that Frazier be moved from the SHU to a cell in the Close Supervision Unit (the "CSU"). The CSU is less restrictive On March 26, 1992, the CSU Screening Committee, chaired by defendant Robert Cunningham, held a hearing at which Frazier appeared and testified. 1 The committee recommended that Frazier remain in the CSU. On April 23, 1992, Frazier appealed that decision to Superintendent Mann. 2 Around that date, all evidence concerning the hacksaw blades and the resulting charge against Frazier was expunged from Frazier's prison record, pursuant to his request. In a letter dated May 26, 1992, Frazier requested that defendant Thomas A. Coughlin, the Commissioner of the New York Department of Corrections, intervene on his behalf in his appeal of his assignment to the CSU. In a decision dated May 28, 1992, Mann denied Frazier's appeal. In a letter dated June 19, 1992, Coughlin informed Frazier that he was deferring to Mann's decision. On December 4, 1992, Frazier filed his complaint in district court. On January 28, 1993, Frazier was removed from the CSU and placed in the general prison population.

                than the SHU.   An inmate assigned to a cell in the CSU is ineligible for certain jobs, but otherwise enjoys the same conditions and privileges as a prisoner in the general population.   The CSU employs greater security measures than the general population prison units, and houses inmates who have a history of violating prison rules.   A prisoner may be placed in the CSU for disciplinary reasons, but may also be placed there at the discretion of the commissioner or superintendent.   Shawangunk's rules expressly state that a hearing is not required for placement in the CSU
                

On December 6 and 7, 1994, a bench trial was held before Judge McCurn. (Frazier was assisted by stand-by counsel.) At the close of the plaintiff's case, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c), in favor of defendants Ellison, Mitchell and Raymond Cunningham. At the close of the defendants' case, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant Coughlin. The district court reserved judgment on the remaining claims. On December 8, the district court issued an oral decision granting judgment as a matter of law on the remaining claims to the remaining defendants. 3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Frazier contends that the district court erred in granting the defendants judgment as a matter of law because: (i) Frazier's pre-hearing confinement to the SHU for twelve days violated his right to procedural due process; (ii) he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining free from assignment to the CSU; (iii) the hearing held by the CSU Screening Committee violated his right to procedural due process; (iv) he had a protected liberty interest in expunging any erroneous information from his prison records; and (v) the district court was required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 to issue findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of its decision. 4 We will separately address each of these claims.

A. Pre-Hearing Confinement.

At the close of the plaintiff's case, the district court found that New York prison regulations do not require that a prisoner who is awaiting disciplinary proceedings be afforded a hearing prior to being placed in a Special Housing Unit. The court therefore held that Frazier had no protected liberty interest in remaining free from confinement Subsequent to the district court's decision, the Supreme Court abandoned the framework established in Hewitt for analyzing whether a prisoner who is subjected to disciplinary confinement has been deprived of a liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, --- U.S. ----, ----, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); see also Samuels v. Mockry, 77 F.3d 34, 36-38 (2d Cir. 1996) (discussing Hewitt and Sandin ) (per curiam ); Rodriguez v. Phillips, 66 F.3d 470, 480 (2d Cir.1995) (same). Hewitt looked to state law and regulations to determine the parameters of a prisoner's protected liberty interests. The Supreme Court in Sandin

                in the SHU, and dismissed Frazier's claim that he was deprived of procedural due process.   In looking to state regulations, the district court apparently applied the standard established in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 470-71, 103 S.Ct. 864, 870-71, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), for determining whether a prisoner has a protected liberty interest
                

recognize[d] that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause. But these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
225 cases
  • Wright v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 17, 1998
    ...that he was deprived of that interest without due process, Bedoya v. Coughlin, 91 F.3d 349, 351-52 (2d Cir.1996), and Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 316 (2d Cir.1996). The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that a protected liberty interest existed and was infringed upon. Frazier,......
  • Rivera v. Goord
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 2000
    ...by regulation or by statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement or restraint." Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)). A disciplinary sanction does not meet t......
  • Sloane v. Borawski
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 4, 2014
    ...and that he was deprived of that interest without due process. Bedoya v. Coughlin, 91 F.3d 349, 351–52 (2d Cir.1996) ; Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 316 (2d Cir.1996).Liberty Interest “A prisoner's liberty interest is implicated by prison discipline, such as SHU confinement, only if the......
  • Cespedes v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 7, 1997
    ...reliance on states' statutes and regulations in determining the existence of prisoners' liberty interests. In Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam), the Second Circuit relied on a footnote in Sandin stating that the decision "does not technically require us to ove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...(duration of sentence not inevitably affected by prisoner in work-release program being returned to conf‌inement); Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (duration of sentence not inevitably affected by pretrial conf‌inement in special housing unit); Fantone v. La......

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