Sommer v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 08 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 985,D,985 |
| Citation | 709 F.2d 173 |
| Parties | Samuel L. SOMMER, Appellant, v. Correctional Officer R. DIXON, Sergeant Miner, Lt. McCasland, Appellees. ocket 82-2016. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Samuel L. Sommer, appellant pro se.
William J. Kogan, Asst. Sol. Gen., Lew A. Millenbach, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, N.Y. (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York) Albany, N.Y., for appellees.
Before OAKES, CARDAMONE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Sommer, a prison inmate, appeals pro se from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, 524 F.Supp. 83, James T. Foley, Judge, dismissing his civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging violation of due process rights in connection with a Superintendent's Proceeding. The district court quite properly directed filing of the complaint and service upon the correctional officers named as defendants. See, e.g., Fries v. Barnes, 618 F.2d 988, 989 (2d Cir.1980); Lewis v. New York, 547 F.2d 4, 6 (2d Cir.1976). Following service and defendants' answers, the State directed interrogatories to Sommer, which he ultimately answered. The State then moved successfully to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.
Defendants are officers of the Clinton Correctional Facility in New York State. While incarcerated there, Sommer was notified of misbehavior reports charging that he (1) attempted to bribe Correctional Officer Dixon, (2) attempted to smuggle unauthorized food into the facility, and (3) interfered with a correctional employee. On May 29, 1978, Sommer was removed from his cell and taken to Unit 14 (a "special housing unit") as the result of these reports. He alleged that while he was in Unit 14 his cell was searched and personal property, legal papers, and books were taken. On May 31, 1978, Sommer appeared before an Adjustment Committee, and on June 15, 1978 (after an adjournment at Sommer's request), he participated in a Superintendent's Proceeding. 1 Sommer alleges that he was denied due process because he was not given adequate notice of the charges against him, nor permitted to respond to the charges, and that the disciplinary action taken against him was in retaliation for a lawsuit that he had previously brought against the Clinton authorities. His complaint did not allege that any named defendant either presided at the Superintendent's Proceeding or participated in the destruction or removal of property from his cell.
Sommer's claim that he was held in segregation for more than seven days without a Superintendent's Proceeding is meritless because he himself requested the adjournment. Even assuming that he has stated a claim of denial of due process at the Superintendent's Proceeding, none of the three named defendants was responsible for conducting or supervising that hearing or the previous Adjustment Committee hearing. See McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1087, 98 S.Ct. 1282, 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). We have nevertheless examined the entire record to determine whether Sommer states any viable due process complaint. On the contrary, Sommer's own papers indicate that he received advance written notice of the charges against him, was given the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, was accorded the aid of a Legal Services staff member in presenting and preparing his defense before an impartial tribunal, and was given a written statement of the reasons relied upon. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-2982, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 832, 102 S.Ct. 131, 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981).
Sommer also claims that, as a result of his being confined in segregation, his cell was searched...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claude v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-00535 (VLB)
... ... to allege a conspiracy with merely conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights) (citing Sommer v. Dixon, 709 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir. 1983)). The 1985 claim is DISMISSED. iv. 2000d Section 2000d provides that "[n]o persons in the United States ... ...
-
Julian v. New York City Transit Authority
... ... See, e.g., Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 311 (2d Cir.1993); Sommer v. Dixon, 709 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 857, 104 S.Ct. 177, 78 L.Ed.2d 158 (1983); Katz v. Morgenthau, 709 ... ...
-
Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n v. Dolphin Stadium
... ... judge and private defendants without supporting operative facts provides an insufficient state action nexus for a section 1983 action."); Sommer v. Dixon, 709 F.2d 173 (2d Cir.1983). Conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss ... ...
-
Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp.
... ... , vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand a motion to dismiss.'") (quoting Sommer v. Dixon, 709 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir.1983)); Neustein v. Orbach, 732 F.Supp. 333, 346 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (holding to survive a motion to dismiss, a ... ...