Luna v. Pico
| Decision Date | 30 January 2004 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 02-299. |
| Citation | 356 F.3d 481 |
| Parties | Alejandro LUNA, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Jose PICO and Allen Cave, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, J.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Naomi J. Schrag, New York, New York (John D. Winter, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York, New York, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
Michael J. Keane, Assistant Attorney General, New York, New York (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Deon J. Nossel, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, New York, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Before: MESKILL and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and CHIN, District Judge.*
In this case, a state prisoner contends that two hearing officers violated his civil rights in administrative disciplinary proceedings by finding him guilty of stabbing another inmate without at least "some evidence" of guilt and sentencing him to confinement in a special housing unit. He alleges that he was deprived of due process of law as a consequence and commenced this action below for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Although we agree that the hearing officers' decisions were not supported by "some evidence," we conclude that the claims against them are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Because the law was not "clearly established" and it was reasonable for the hearing officers to believe they were acting in a lawful manner, they are immune from suit. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order to the extent it denies their motion for summary judgment and we remand for the entry of judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
Except as stated otherwise, the facts relevant to these appeals are not substantially in dispute. Construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant Alejandro Luna, the facts are as follows:
1. The Parties
Luna is an inmate in the New York State correctional system. From prior to November 30, 1997 until April 21, 1998, he was incarcerated at the Fishkill Correctional Facility ("Fishkill"). On April 21, 1998, he was transferred to the Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport"). Defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Jose Pico and Allen Cave are hearing officers employed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") who presided over separate disciplinary hearings on the charge that Luna stabbed another inmate.
2. The Incident
On November 30, 1997, two inmates, Brown and Gonzalez, were involved in a fight at Fishkill. A third inmate, Lopez, tried to separate them and was stabbed in the process. Corrections Officer Patricia McIntosh witnessed the altercation but did not see Lopez get stabbed.
McIntosh sounded an alarm. Some 15 to 20 corrections officers responded to the location within seconds. The officers yelled "on the count" — a command for all inmates to freeze wherever they were.
Luna contends that at the time of the incident he was in his cubicle, on his bed, drinking coffee. After the incident, however, he was told by a corrections officer that he was a suspect in the stabbing of Lopez. Shortly thereafter Luna was placed in the special housing unit (the "SHU") pending investigation.
The next day, December 1, 1997, Luna was given a "ticket" — a misbehavior report. The ticket charged Luna with assault and reported the following:
INMATE LOPEZ 90T1438 STATED THAT INMATE LUNA, A 91A1561 STABBED HIM SEVERAL TIMES. INMATE LOPEZ RECEIVED PUNCTURE WOUNDS ON HIS BUTTOCKS, SHOULDER AND ARM. PHOTOS OF SAID INJURIES WERE TAKEN. THE WEAPON IS UNKNOWN AND UNRECOVERED AT THIS TIME.
The report was signed by Lieutenant J. Tucker.
3. The First Hearing
A Tier III disciplinary hearing was held on the charge on December 8, 1997, presided over by Pico.1 Luna denied that he had anything to do with the incident. McIntosh testified as to what she saw. According to Luna, she also testified that she did not see Luna "around" the area where the incident occurred and that she saw him in his cubicle "immediately after the incident." Lopez was called as a witness, but he refused to testify. When asked if he had told anyone that Luna had stabbed him, he said: "I take the Fifth."
No other witnesses were called. Fisher, who wrote the misbehavior report, did not testify. The only evidence implicating Luna in the stabbing were the misbehavior report and a letter written by Lopez that was read into the record. It stated as follows:
My name is Hector Lopez, 90-T-1438, and the reason why I am writing to you, is because I would like to press charges on inmate Luna, 91-A-1561, for stabbing me on my arm and ass. This happened on one center about 2 PM. All I did was try to stop inmate Gonzalez from doing something to inmate Brown, that's when inmate Luna, 91-A-1561, tried to stop me from getting close to Gonzalez, that's when he, inmate Luna, stabbed me on my ass and arm.
Pico found Luna guilty of stabbing Lopez and sentenced him to 730 days confinement in the SHU and loss of certain privileges, and also recommended the loss of 24 months good time credit.
Luna appealed to the DOCS Special Housing and Inmate Discipline Unit. On March 3, 1998, DOCS reversed on the grounds that:
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FAILS TO SUPPORT CHARGES. ALSO THE HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO INTERVIEW THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT. THE REPORT WAS NOT BASED ON STAFF OBSERVATION.
DOCS ordered a rehearing.
4. The Second Hearing
A second Tier III hearing was conducted starting on March 9, 1998, with Cave presiding.2 Again, Luna pled not guilty and testified that he was in his cubicle at the time of the incident and had nothing to do with the fight. Lopez again refused to testify. He signed a "refusal form" stating that "I do not want to be involved because I don't want no problems." The misbehavior report was read into the record. McIntosh testified again. She stated that she witnessed the altercation between Brown and Gonzalez and saw a chair being thrown twice. She saw Lopez try to separate the two, but she did not see him get stabbed. She did not know Luna's whereabouts at the time of the incident and she did not see him in his cubicle until after the incident was over.
Cave also read from a report that had been prepared by Sergeant Fisher, who had investigated the incident:
I [Fisher] then interviewed inmate Lopez who told me that ... inmate Gonzalez was cutting inmate Brown and that he (Lopez) tried to break up the fight. When this happened according to inmate Lopez, inmate Luna who was the lookout started to stab inmate Lopez. Lopez had several puncture wounds to his buttocks, shoulder, and arm. Photos were taken of the injuries and turned over to Lt. Tucker....
Luna read the letter from Lopez again, suggesting that it was inconsistent with the statement Lopez had given to Fisher.
Tucker, the author of the misbehavior report, testified. He stated that he wrote the misbehavior report charging Luna with stabbing Lopez based on Fisher's investigative report and Lopez's written statement, which Fisher had obtained from Lopez at Tucker's direction. Tucker did not speak to Lopez himself and testified that he had "no idea" whether Lopez was telling the truth.
Cave found Luna guilty of stabbing Lopez. He sentenced Luna to SHU confinement and loss of privileges for a total of 545 days, consisting of 95 days for the period from November 30, 1997 through March 3, 1998, when the first guilty finding was reversed, and an additional 450 days starting on March 3, 1998. Cave also recommended the loss of 18 months good time credit.
Luna again appealed and DOCS again reversed. In a memorandum dated June 8, 1998, DOCS concluded as follows:
SINCE REPORT WAS NOT BASED UPON FIRST-HAND OBSERVATION AND REPORTING EMPLOYEE OBTAINED INFORMATION THIRD-HAND, FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM STAFF WHO CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION WAS WARRANTED[.]
Luna was released from the Southport SHU to the general population on June 20, 1998. He spent a total of 204 days in SHU confinement as a result of the charge that he had stabbed Lopez.
Luna commenced this action pro se on November 3, 1998 against Pico, Cave, and two other defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. He was appointed counsel and filed an amended complaint. After the completion of discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment.
The district court heard argument on September 6, 2002. With Luna's consent, the district court dismissed the claims against the two defendants other than Pico and Cave. After initially indicating that it was going to reserve decision as to the balance of the motions, the district court spoke with counsel off the record. Upon reconvening on the record, the court noted that all claims in the case were dismissed on consent except the due process claims against Pico and Cave based on their determinations that Luna was guilty of the stabbing. The court denied the cross-motions to that extent, noting that the principal issue for trial was whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court set the case down for trial on October 7, 2002. An order memorializing the rulings was filed on September 6, 2002.
These cross-appeals followed. Pico and Cave contend that the district court erred in not granting summary judgment in their favor because they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Luna contends that he was entitled to summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability.
This Court has jurisdiction to hear defendants' appeal because "a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...quotation marks omitted.) In reaching its decision, the habeas court rejected the petitioner's contention that, under Luna v. Pico , 356 F.3d 481, 489 (2d Cir. 2004), and Sira v. Morton , 380 F.3d 57, 78 (2d Cir. 2004), Tugie was required to conduct an independent investigation into M's "ba......
-
Patrick v. Success Acad. Charter Sch., Inc.
...the right, and (3) a reasonable defendant would have understood from the existing law that his conduct was unlawful." Luna v. Pico , 356 F.3d 481, 490 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson v. Recore , 317 F.3d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 2003) ); see also White v. Pauly , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 548, 552......
-
Rodriguez v. City of New York
...the right, and (3) a reasonable defendant would have understood from the existing law that his conduct was unlawful." Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481, 490 (2d Cir.2004). This analysis "must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition." Brosseau ......
-
Soundview Assoc.s v. Town Of Riverhead
...the right, and (3) a reasonable defendant would have understood from the existing law that his conduct was unlawful.” Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481, 490 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). This analysis “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad ge......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...“some evidence” supported disciplinary action); Williams v. Bass, 63 F.3d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1995) (same). But see, e.g., Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481, 489 (2d Cir. 2004) (due process violation where only evidence at hearing was bare assertion by victim who refused to confirm initial allegat......
-
U.S. appeals court: qualified immunity; Luna v. Pico.
...v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2nd Cir. 2004). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against hearing officers, alleging that they deprived him of due process in disciplinary proceedings. The district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment and the parties appealed. The appeals co......