Filing 33


Download PDF
HINTON v. TENNIS et al Doc. 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA C O R E Y HINTON, P la in tiff v. F R A N K L I N J. TENNIS, et al. D e fe n d a n ts : : : : : : : C I V I L ACTION No. 08-0295 MEMORANDUM S T E N G E L , J. O c to b e r 27, 2010 C o re y Hinton, a former inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, b ro u g h t this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of h is rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The d e f e n d a n ts are several officials of the correctional facilities in which Mr. Hinton has been in c a rc e ra te d . They have filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the F e d e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Mr. Hinton has not responded to the motion, and the tim e to do so has expired. For the following reasons, I will grant the motion in its e n tire ty, and enter judgment in favor of the defendants. I. BACKGROUND In 1995, as a result of two separate and unrelated incidents, Mr. Hinton was 1 I note that the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, see Document #29, yet filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss, see Document #30. The pleadings in this case are closed, and discovery is complete. Although the brief does not provide a standard of review, I will construe the motion as one for summary judgment. Dockets.Justia.com convicted of attempted homicide and car theft. Three years later, the attempted homicide c h a rg e was reduced to aggravated assault. He was sentenced on both convictions to four to six years' imprisonment to run consecutively, and served the maximum time. In 2004, M r. Hinton was convicted of a drug offense, and sentenced to two to five years' im p ris o n m e n t. The record indicates that he was "maxed out" on that conviction on N o v e m b e r 29, 2009. Mr. Hinton testified at his deposition that, in early 2006, while at the State C o rre c tio n a l Institution at Rockview, he applied for pre-release to a community c o rre c tio n s center. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Hinton was told by his counselors at Rockview th a t they would support him for pre-release. He was also told, however, that no final d e c is io n would be made until letters were sent to the district attorney, the sentencing ju d g e , and any victims. Those letters were mailed on May 22, 2006. Because no replies w e re received within thirty days, another meeting was scheduled, and he met with his c o u n s e lo rs at Rockview on July 10, 2006. Two weeks before that meeting, Mr. Hinton was denied parole based on his need to attend a required "batterers" group. The administration at Rockview, nevertheless, a p p ro v e d Mr. Hinton for pre-release. On October 16, 2006, Mr. Hinton was transferred to the Joseph Coleman Center in Philadelphia, a community corrections center. On January 4, 2007, Defendant Evans Gary, Jr., one of the regional directors of the C o le m a n Center, issued a misconduct charge against Mr. Hinton alleging that Mr. Hinton 2 had threatened a staff member in the early hours of January 1, 2007. Such conduct would b e considered a violation of one of the conditions of Mr. Hinton's pre-release program. Mr. Hinton has consistently maintained that he was asleep at the time of the alleged o f f e n s e , and thus was innocent of the charges. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hinton was tra n s f e rre d to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. Hearing Examiner Mary C a n in o held a hearing at Graterford on January 8, 2007 on the misconduct charges. Mr. H in to n insists that he submitted a witness form to Miss Canino at the hearing, although th e re is no record of the form and he does not have a copy of it. Miss Canino dismissed th e charges without prejudice because the misconduct report did not specifically allege th e threatening behavior with which Mr. Hinton was charged. A second misconduct report for the same incident was issued by Mr. Gary. After a h e a rin g on February 8, 2007, Miss Canino dismissed the charges without prejudice for the re p o rt's same deficiency, i.e., failure to allege the threatening behavior. Mr. Hinton did n o t submit a witness form prior to the second hearing. Mr. Hinton was transferred to Rockview, where on March 23, 2007, he received ye t another set of charges stemming from the January 1, 2007 incident. A hearing on th o s e charges was conducted on March 27, 2007.2 Mr. Hinton also did not submit a w itn e s s form for that hearing. Defendant Robert Reed, the hearing examiner, found Mr. H in to n guilty of both charges in the misconduct report, i.e., threatening a staff member 2 Mr. Hinton recalls the hearing taking place on March 23, 2007. The record reflects, however, that the hearing was held on March 27, 2007. See Document #29-3 at 11-12. 3 and violating a condition of pre-release. In his report of hearing action, Mr. Reed stated th a t he "believes the staff member's written report over the denial of inmate Hinton that H in to n did make a threat towards staff when he stated that he was going to kick S u p e rv is o r Bennett's f**king ass." Mr. Reed sanctioned Mr. Hinton by revoking his p re -re le a s e status. Mr. Hinton received no time in disciplinary custody as a result of b e in g found guilty of these charges. Mr. Hinton appealed Mr. Reed's decision to the Program Review Committee, the s u p e rin te n d e n t of Rockview, and the Chief Hearing Examiner of the Department of C o rre c tio n s . Mr. Reed's decision was upheld at each level of review. In his amended complaint, Mr. Hinton claims that he had been granted a liberty in te re s t through the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole when he was "granted p a ro le ,"3 released from Rockview, and placed in the Coleman Center. He further c o n te n d s that the revocation of his "parole constitutes grounds for claiming deprivation of a constitutionally-based liberty interest, which was illegally terminated through his re m o v a l from Coleman Hall and transfer to SCI - Graterford and further transfer to SCI R o c k v ie w ." He seeks the reversal of the hearing examiner's decision, expungement of th e incident from his record, re-instatement of his pre-release status, and punitive d a m a g e s in the amount of $10,000 plus costs and attorneys fees. 3 I note that parole and pre-release are not interchangeable terms. Mr. Hinton was denied parole in June 2006, but was granted pre-release a few months thereafter. 4 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW S u m m a ry judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to in te rro g a to rie s , and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is n o genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). An issue is "genuine" if the evidence is such th a t a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. L ib e rty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual dispute is "material" if it might a f f e c t the outcome of the case under governing law. Id. A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility for in f o rm in g the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record th a t it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v . Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Where the non-moving party bears the burden of p ro o f on a particular issue at trial, the movant's initial Celotex burden can be met simply b y "pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the n o n -m o v in g party's case." Id. at 325. After the moving party has met its initial burden, " th e adverse party's response, by affidavits or otherwise as provided in this rule, must set f o rth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). That is, summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party fails to rebut by m a k in g a factual showing "sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to th a t party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex 5 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322. Under Rule 56, the court must view the evidence p re s e n te d on the motion in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Anderson v. L ib e rty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255. The court must decide not whether the evidence u n m is ta k a b ly favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a v e rd ic t for the plaintiff on the evidence presented. Id. at 252. If the non-moving party h a s exceeded the mere scintilla of evidence threshold and has offered a genuine issue of m a te ria l fact, then the court cannot credit the movant's version of events against the o p p o n e n t, even if the quantity of the movant's evidence far outweighs that of its o p p o n e n t. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3 d Cir. 1992). III. DISCUSSION In his amended complaint, Mr. Hinton alleges that he was denied both his right to d u e process and his liberty interest when he was transferred from the Coleman Center to G ra te rf o rd without a hearing, and when he was not permitted to call witnesses at his m isc o n d u c t hearings. He indicates that the liberty interest was granted to him by the P e n n sylv a n ia Board of Probation and Parole, as is evidenced by his placement into the C o le m a n Center. Mr. Hinton contends that by terminating that liberty interest, the D e p a rtm e n t of Corrections violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Title 42 of the United States Code 1983 provides remedies for deprivations of rig h ts established in the Constitution or federal laws. It does not, by its own terms, create 6 substantive rights. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 n.3 (1979). Section 1983 p ro v id e s , in part: E v e ry person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, re g u la tio n , custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the D is tric t of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any c itiz e n of the United States or other person within the ju ris d ic tio n thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, o r immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be lia b le to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or o th e r proper proceeding for redress. T o have succeeded on his due process claim, Mr. Hinton must have first d e m o n s tra te d that he was deprived of a liberty interest when his pre-release status was re v o k e d , and he was transferred from the Coleman Center to Graterford. "Protected lib e rty . . . interests generally arise either from the Due Process Clause or from s ta te -c re a te d statutory entitlement." Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506, 522 (3d Cir. 2002) (q u o tin g Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Asquith v. Dep't of C o rre c tio n s , 186 F.3d 407, 409 (3d Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court has recognized that " a s long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is w ith in the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative of the Constitution, th e Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate's treatment by prison a u th o ritie s to judicial oversight." Asquith, 186 F.3d at 410 (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U .S . 460, 468 (1983)); see also Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) ("We have h e ld that the Constitution itself does not give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to more adverse conditions of confinement"); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 7 (1976) (no liberty interest arising from Due Process Clause itself in transfer from low-to m a x im u m -s e c u rity prison because confinement in any of the State's institutions is within th e normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to im p o s e ); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) (transfer of an inmate to a p riso n in another state did not implicate due process clause). Here, the record demonstrates that the only loss suffered by Mr. Hinton as a result o f the misconduct report and subsequent conviction was the revocation of his pre-release s ta tu s . Mr. Hinton was not subjected to confinement that exceeded the sentence imposed u p o n him or that otherwise violated the Constitution, and therefore no liberty interest c re a te d by the Due Process Clause itself was impinged. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 468 ("It is plain that the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for n o n -p u n itiv e reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a p riso n sentence"). Moreover, Mr. Hinton's change in classification level does not involve a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 8 8 n. 9 (1976) (prison officials have discretion over prisoner classifications and prisoners h a v e no legitimate Due Process concerns in them). Mr. Hinton is also unable to demonstrate that he was deprived of a state-created lib e rty interest. In Sandin v. Conner, the Supreme Court recognized that such interests a re "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 Due Process Clause of 8 its own force, . . . nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in re la tio n to the ordinary incidents of prison life." 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); see also S h o a ts , 213 F.3d at 143; Asquith, 186 F.3d at 412. In ascertaining whether something is a n "atypical and significant" hardship, a court considers "what a sentenced inmate may re a s o n a b ly expect to encounter as a result of his or her conviction in accordance with due p ro c e s s of law." Asquith, 186 F.3d at 412 (quoting Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 706 n .2 (3d Cir. 1997). Consequently, the focus of this inquiry should be on the nature of the d e p riv a tio n . See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 481-482. Although an inmate who is transferred f ro m the Coleman Center to Graterford and/or Rockview faces additional restrictions, the tra n s f e r does not impose an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary in c id e n ts of prison life. See Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d at 522. A sentenced state p riso n e r can reasonably expect to be housed in a state correctional institution during his te rm of imprisonment. It is part of the ordinary incidents of prison life. The nature of b e in g deprived of one's pre-release status does not impose an atypical and/or significant h a rd s h ip on a prisoner. Accordingly, because Mr. Hinton was not deprived of a legally recognized liberty in te re s t, he cannot show a violation of due process. Even if Mr. Hinton could show, h o w e v e r, that he was denied a liberty interest, the Department of Corrections still p ro v id e d him with adequate procedures under the circumstances. Transfers to the most h a rs h prison conditions trigger only minimal procedures, and even then, Due Process does 9 not require prior notice of the transfer or the right to call witnesses as long as the inmate is provided with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the grounds of his segregation. In H e w itt v. Helms, the Supreme Court considered the process due inmates assigned to a d m in is tra tiv e custody, holding that in those situations, an "informal, non-adversary re v ie w " at which the prisoner has the opportunity to state his views, satisfies the re q u ire m e n ts of due process: A n inmate must merely receive some notice of the charges a g a in s t him and an opportunity to present his views to the p ris o n official charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation. Ordinarily a written statement b y the inmate will accomplish this purpose, although prison a d m in is tra to rs may find it more useful to permit oral p re s e n ta tio n s in cases where they believe a written statement w o u ld be ineffective. So long as this occurs, and the d e c is io n m a k e r reviews the charges and then-available evidence against the prisoner, the D 4 5 9 U.S. at 476; see also Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 217 (informal procedures giving notice f o r basis of placement in a "supermax" facility, an opportunity for rebuttal at a hearing a n d multiple levels of review satisfied due process). While Mr. Hinton's transfer from a c o m m u n ity corrections center to a state prison is much less severe than a transfer to a " s u p e rm a x " facility, he is not entitled to any more procedures than an inmate facing s e g re g a te d confinement.4 Mr. Hinton was provided with notice of the charges, and was g iv e n an opportunity to present his side to the hearing examiner. He also took advantage 4 I note that this is not a case where good-time credit is at stake as it was in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), which would require a more formalized adversarial proceeding. 10 of the opportunities for subsequent review of the hearing examiner's decision. No further p ro c e s s was required. In conclusion, because Mr. Hinton was not deprived of a constitutionally-based lib e rty interest when his pre-release status was revoked, he cannot establish a denial of his c o n s titu tio n a l right to due process. An appropriate Order follows. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA C O R E Y HINTON, P la in tiff v. F R A N K L I N J. TENNIS, et al. D e fe n d a n ts : : : : : : : C I V I L ACTION No. 08-0295 ORDER A N D NOW, this 27th day of October, 2010, upon consideration of the d e f e n d a n ts ' unanswered motion for summary judgment (Document #29), it is hereby O R D E R E D that the motion is GRANTED in its entirety. T h e Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED for all purposes. B Y THE COURT: /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA C O R E Y HINTON, P la in tiff v. F R A N K L I N J. TENNIS, et al. D e fe n d a n ts : : : : : : : C I V I L ACTION No. 08-0295 ORDER OF JUDGMENT A N D NOW, this 27th day of October, 2010, in accordance with my Order g ra n tin g the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and in accordance with Federal R u le of Civil Procedure 58, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the defendants, and a g a in s t the plaintiff. B Y THE COURT: /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?