Crenshaw v. Kirkpatrick et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying plaintiff's 122 motion for expungement of his misbehavior report. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 1/10/13. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
WILLIAM CRENSHAW,

Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
08-CV-6186L
v.
C.O. RICHARD HAMILTON,

Defendant.
________________________________________________
Plaintiff, William Crenshaw, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, has filed a “motion to have [his] false misbehavior report
expunged in it’s [sic] entirety.” Dkt. #122.
The motion is denied. Since the underlying disciplinary conviction has not been overturned,
and plaintiff has not demonstrated that that he is likely to succeed on his underlying claims, there is
no basis for this Court to grant the relief requested. See Smith v. Woods, 219 Fed.Appx. 110, 111
(2d Cir. 2007) (“Because Smith’s disciplinary conviction has not been reversed, expunged, or
otherwise invalidated, his claim that his due process rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing
must fail”) (citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647 (1997)); Salvatierra v. Connolly, No. 09
Civ. 3722, 2010 WL 5480756, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2010) (“Plaintiff’s request that a false
misbehavior report be expunged from his record should be denied because Plaintiff has not made
a ‘clear’ or ‘substantial’ showing of likelihood of success on his underlying claims”).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the expungement of his misbehavior report (Dkt.
#122) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
January 10, 2012.

-2-