×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Constitutional Violation Found by State Court Doesn't Create Collateral Estoppel in Federal Action
Constitutional Violation Found by State Court Doesn't Create Collateral
Estoppel in Federal Action
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner seeking damages
for a due process violation could not argue the defendants were
collaterally estopped from arguing the prisoner's due process rights were
not violated although a state court found those rights were violated. The
prisoner prevailed in a New York Article 78 action challenging the
disciplinary process provided him at Attica Correctional Facility. The
Court held that although the prisoner prevailed in the Article 78 action,
the defendants did not have the same incentive to challenge the action
because they could not be held liable in that action, nor were the defenses
of absolute or qualified immunity, or lack of personal involvement
available to them. Even assuming the state court decision reflects a
decision of the prisoner's constitutional claim; it does not entitle the
prisoner to use the state court judgment for purposes of collateral
estoppel in this federal action.
The Court further held the prisoner did not have a protected liberty
interest in having his disciplinary hearing concluded within seven days
after his confinement. The order of the district court dismissing the case
was affirmed. See: Gutierrez v. Coughlin, 841 F. 2d 484 (2nd Cir. 1988).
Estoppel in Federal Action
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner seeking damages
for a due process violation could not argue the defendants were
collaterally estopped from arguing the prisoner's due process rights were
not violated although a state court found those rights were violated. The
prisoner prevailed in a New York Article 78 action challenging the
disciplinary process provided him at Attica Correctional Facility. The
Court held that although the prisoner prevailed in the Article 78 action,
the defendants did not have the same incentive to challenge the action
because they could not be held liable in that action, nor were the defenses
of absolute or qualified immunity, or lack of personal involvement
available to them. Even assuming the state court decision reflects a
decision of the prisoner's constitutional claim; it does not entitle the
prisoner to use the state court judgment for purposes of collateral
estoppel in this federal action.
The Court further held the prisoner did not have a protected liberty
interest in having his disciplinary hearing concluded within seven days
after his confinement. The order of the district court dismissing the case
was affirmed. See: Gutierrez v. Coughlin, 841 F. 2d 484 (2nd Cir. 1988).
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
Gutierrez v. Coughlin
| Year | 1988 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 841 F. 2d 484 (2nd Cir. 1988) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Gutierrez v. Coughlin, 841 F.2d 484 (2nd Cir. 03/10/1988)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[2] No. 87-2446
[3] 1988. 841 F.2d 484
[4] decided: March 10, 1988.
[5] ROBERTO GUTIERREZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, III, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICE, HAROLD J. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CHARLES JAMES, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND W. COOK, CORRECTION OFFICER AT ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
[6] Plaintiff Roberto Gutierrez appeals from the October 6, 1987 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Curtin, J.) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint. Affirmed.
[7] ANNA MARIE RICHMOND, York (David C. Leven, Executive Director, Prisoners' Legal Services of of counsel); for Plaintiff-Appellant.
[8] DANIEL SMIRLOCK, Assistant Attorney General, (Robert Abrams, Attorney General; Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General; Wayne L. Benjamin, Assistant Attorney General; of counsel); for Defendants-Appellees.
[9] Cardamone and Pierce, Circuit Judges, and Stanton, District Judge*fn*
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Per Curiam:
[12] Appellant Roberto Gutierrez, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, appeals from the October 6, 1987 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Curtin, J.) granting a motion made by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and a Correction Officer at the Attica Correctional Facility (appellees) for summary judgment and dismissing Gutierrez' complaint.
[13] Gutierrez filed the present action in the district court under 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (1982), alleging, inter alia, that appellees violated his due process rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. On April 4, 1983 the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Wyoming County (Conable, J.), held in an Article 78 proceeding that appellees had failed to conclude a disciplinary proceeding within seven days after Gutierrez' confinement, in contravention to our opinion in Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 832, 70 L. Ed. 2d 111, 102 S. Ct. 131 (1981). Appellant sought to use the state court proceeding order preclusively in this federal ? 1983 civil rights case, claiming that Justice Conable's decision in the Article 78 proceeding collaterally estops the appellees from relitigating whether a due process violation occurred.
[14] As we noted in Davidson v. Capuano, 792 F.2d 275, 278 (1986), an Article 78 tribunal can award damages only if (1) the damages are incidental to the primary relief sought, and (2) the relief is such that the petitioner could have recovered on the same set of facts in a separate suit maintainable in the Supreme Court against the same officer in his official capacity. Damages for civil rights violations may not be recovered in an Article 78 proceeding. Id. at 278-79. Because appellees could not have been held personally liable in such a proceeding, they did not have the same incentive to litigate that state court action as they did the federal ? 1983 action. See, e.g., Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 330-31, 58 L. Ed. 2d 552, 99 S. Ct. 645 (1979). Cf. Shaid v. Consolidated Edison Co., 95 A.D.2d 610, 615-16, 467 N.Y.S.2d 843, 847 (2d Dep't 1983). Moreover, the defenses of absolute or qualified immunity, or lack of personal involvement, were not available to appellees. Thus, even assuming that the order in the Article 78 proceeding reflects a decision on Gutierrez' constitutional claim, appellant is not entitled to use that state court judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel in this federal action.
[15] Judge Curtin did not err in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Gutierrez could not demonstrate a deprivation of his constitutional due process rights. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472, 74 L. Ed. 2d 675, 103 S. Ct. 864 (1983). The regulations in effect in 1982 requiring the superintendent's hearing to be commenced within seven days did not give rise to a protected liberty interest in having the hearing completed within seven days. In addition, it is clear that appellees' defense of good faith immunity would preclude any finding of liability on their part. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987).
[16] The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17] *fn* Hon. Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[2] No. 87-2446
[3] 1988. 841 F.2d 484
[4] decided: March 10, 1988.
[5] ROBERTO GUTIERREZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, III, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICE, HAROLD J. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CHARLES JAMES, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND W. COOK, CORRECTION OFFICER AT ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
[6] Plaintiff Roberto Gutierrez appeals from the October 6, 1987 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Curtin, J.) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint. Affirmed.
[7] ANNA MARIE RICHMOND, York (David C. Leven, Executive Director, Prisoners' Legal Services of of counsel); for Plaintiff-Appellant.
[8] DANIEL SMIRLOCK, Assistant Attorney General, (Robert Abrams, Attorney General; Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General; Wayne L. Benjamin, Assistant Attorney General; of counsel); for Defendants-Appellees.
[9] Cardamone and Pierce, Circuit Judges, and Stanton, District Judge*fn*
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Per Curiam:
[12] Appellant Roberto Gutierrez, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, appeals from the October 6, 1987 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Curtin, J.) granting a motion made by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and a Correction Officer at the Attica Correctional Facility (appellees) for summary judgment and dismissing Gutierrez' complaint.
[13] Gutierrez filed the present action in the district court under 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (1982), alleging, inter alia, that appellees violated his due process rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. On April 4, 1983 the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Wyoming County (Conable, J.), held in an Article 78 proceeding that appellees had failed to conclude a disciplinary proceeding within seven days after Gutierrez' confinement, in contravention to our opinion in Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 832, 70 L. Ed. 2d 111, 102 S. Ct. 131 (1981). Appellant sought to use the state court proceeding order preclusively in this federal ? 1983 civil rights case, claiming that Justice Conable's decision in the Article 78 proceeding collaterally estops the appellees from relitigating whether a due process violation occurred.
[14] As we noted in Davidson v. Capuano, 792 F.2d 275, 278 (1986), an Article 78 tribunal can award damages only if (1) the damages are incidental to the primary relief sought, and (2) the relief is such that the petitioner could have recovered on the same set of facts in a separate suit maintainable in the Supreme Court against the same officer in his official capacity. Damages for civil rights violations may not be recovered in an Article 78 proceeding. Id. at 278-79. Because appellees could not have been held personally liable in such a proceeding, they did not have the same incentive to litigate that state court action as they did the federal ? 1983 action. See, e.g., Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 330-31, 58 L. Ed. 2d 552, 99 S. Ct. 645 (1979). Cf. Shaid v. Consolidated Edison Co., 95 A.D.2d 610, 615-16, 467 N.Y.S.2d 843, 847 (2d Dep't 1983). Moreover, the defenses of absolute or qualified immunity, or lack of personal involvement, were not available to appellees. Thus, even assuming that the order in the Article 78 proceeding reflects a decision on Gutierrez' constitutional claim, appellant is not entitled to use that state court judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel in this federal action.
[15] Judge Curtin did not err in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Gutierrez could not demonstrate a deprivation of his constitutional due process rights. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472, 74 L. Ed. 2d 675, 103 S. Ct. 864 (1983). The regulations in effect in 1982 requiring the superintendent's hearing to be commenced within seven days did not give rise to a protected liberty interest in having the hearing completed within seven days. In addition, it is clear that appellees' defense of good faith immunity would preclude any finding of liability on their part. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987).
[16] The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17] *fn* Hon. Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.