Confiscation of Political Literature, Denial of Hearing Notice and Witnesses States Claim
Confiscation of Political Literature, Denial of Hearing Notice and
Witnesses States Claim
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held a district court erred in
dismissing a prisoner's civil rights complaint for failure to state a cause
of action and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The New York
prisoner's complaint alleged the prisoner was called before the
disciplinary committee and charged with threatening a guard. He was given
neither advance notice of the hearing nor an opportunity to call witnesses,
and he was placed in punitive segregation. Five days later the prisoner was
to appear at another hearing to determine if additional punishment was
warranted. The prisoner alleged guards took his shoes and prohibited him
from appearing at the hearing because he was barefoot, which resulted in an
additional two weeks segregation. Finally, the prisoner alleged his legal
papers and political literature was confiscated while he was in segregation.
The Second Circuit held that as the prisoner did not challenge the duration
of his confinement, his action for declaratory and injunctive relief did not
require him to exhaust administrative remedies. It should be noted this
ruling is no longer valid under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
The court further held that the prisoner is entitled to a due process right
to have advance notice of the hearing and to call witnesses on his behalf.
Additionally, confiscation of his legal papers may constitute a denial of
access to the courts. Finally, the court found an arbitrary confiscation of
political literature, without any showing of danger to prison security, may
violate the First Amendment. The district court's order of dismissal was
reversed and remanded. See: Riney v. Wilson, 520 F.2d 589 (2nd Cir. 1975).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Riney v. Wilson
| Year | 1975 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 520 F.2d 589 (2nd Cir. 1975). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[2] Docket No. 75-8146 September Term, 1974
[3] 520 F.2d 589
[4] decided: July 2, 1975.
[5] DAVID J. P. HINEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MALCOLM WILSON, ET AL., APPELLEES
[6] Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Edmund Port, Judge, dismissing a prisoner's complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[7] Kaufman, Chief Judge, Feinberg and Mansfield, Circuit Judges.
[8] Author: Per Curiam
[9] Judge Port dismissed David Hiney's civil rights complaint without a hearing, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim. We believe some guidance from us might be useful to Judge Port upon our remand.
[10] The allegations in the complaint, which we must take as true for the purposes of this appeal, Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1030, 84 S. Ct. 1733 (1964) are briefly summarized. Hiney, an inmate at the Clinton Correctional Facility, was called before the prison disciplinary committee on July 5, 1974, and charged with threatening a prison official. He alleges that he was given neither advance notice of the hearing nor an opportunity to call witnesses in his defense. Hiney was put in punitive segregation, and a further hearing was scheduled five days later to determine whether additional punishment was warranted. While he was in segregation, Hiney claims, his legal papers and political literature were confiscated. The complaint also charges that the guards took Hiney's shoes, and forbade him to appear before the disciplinary committee barefoot. He was thus kept in segregation for an additional two weeks.
[11] Hiney does not challenge the duration of his confinement at Clinton, and is thus not required - in this action for damages and injunctive relief - to go through the formality of exhausting administrative remedies. Wolff v. McDonnell,418 U.S. 539, 554-55, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Ray v. Fritz, 468 F.2d 586 (2d Cir. 1972).
[12] The allegations in Hiney's complaint, if proven, would clearly entitle him to relief. An inmate facing disciplinary proceedings must be afforded notice and an opportunity to call witnesses in his behalf. Wolff v. McDonnell,418 U.S. 539, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974). Additionally, confiscation of Hiney's legal papers may constitute a denial of access to the courts. See Corby v. Conboy,457 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1972). And an arbitrary confiscation of political literature, without any showing of danger to prison security, may violate Hiney's First Amendment rights. See Sostre v. Otis,330 F. Supp. 941 (S.D.N.Y. 1971); Fortune Society v. McGinnis, 319 F. Supp. 901 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). Finally, if Hiney was in fact prevented from appearing before the disciplinary committee for the unlikely reason stated in his complaint, he was arbitrarily denied a hearing.
[13] Hiney does not contest the dismissal of his complaint against Wilson, Woodward, Rabadue, and Mahoney. Consequently, our order does not apply to those defendants.
[14] Remanded.
[15] Disposition
[16] Remanded.