Title: Robinson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES M. ROBINSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 454, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05C-12-182 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 29, 2006 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 23, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of February 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Charles Robinson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order granting summary judgment to the State on 
Robinson’s complaint alleging due process violations associated with a 
prison disciplinary hearing.  The State has filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest of the face of Robinson’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On November 2, 2004, Robinson was an inmate housed at the 
Delaware Correctional Center.  He was found in possession of a shank.  A 
 
2
disciplinary hearing was held, and Robinson was found guilty of the 
violation. Robinson was placed in isolation for fifteen days.  In December 
2005, he filed his complaint in the Superior Court alleging that the 
disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights because he was not 
permitted to call witnesses on his behalf.  The Superior Court granted 
summary judgment to the State on the ground that fifteen days in isolation 
did not constitute an infringement upon Robinson’s liberty interests.1 Thus, 
his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of Robinson’s opening brief and the 
State’s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment below should 
be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision 
dated August 21, 2006.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 
fifteen days in isolation did not allege an infringement of Robinson’s 
protected liberty interests sufficient to state a claim for which relief could be 
granted.   
 
 
                                                 
1 See Griffen v. Vaughn, 112, F.3d 701, 704 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that fifteen 
months in isolation did not create an “atypical and significant hardship on [an] inmate in 
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” in order to state a claim for a procedural 
due process violation). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice