Opinion ID: 771827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of Process Accorded Taylor

Text: 17 The district court determined that conditions in close custody are similar to those in administrative segregation. Plaintiff does not challenge this conclusion, and in fact asked in his complaint that close custody be recognized as administrative segregation. The Supreme Court requires that, assuming the existence of a liberty interest, a prisoner placed in administrative segregation be provided some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison official charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476 (1983); accord Rodriguez v. Phillips, 66 F.3d 470, 480 (2d Cir. 1995). 18 In her affidavit in support of summary judgment, Hearing Officer Soto states that she conducted the hearing in accordance with Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative Directive 6.14 (Security Risk Groups) and Administrative Directive 9.5 (Code of Penal Discipline). 1 Plaintiff does not urge that any other regulation should have been controlling. Under these state regulations, Connecticut state prisoners being considered for transfer to close custody must receive notice of the charges against them at least 24 hours prior to the hearing, have a meeting with an advocate 24 hours before the hearing, and if the inmate requests such assistance, a thorough investigation by the advocate, an opportunity to appear, present evidence and call witnesses. The record of the hearing must contain a written statement including the offense charged, the plea of the accused inmate, the disposition of witnesses, a summary of witness testimony, the finding and the reasons for it, the sanction(s) imposed and the reasons for it and any other noteworthy information about the hearing. Connecticut Dep't of Correction Admin. Directive 9.5 at 12-17. These processes are in accordance with Supreme Court precedent. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 466 n.3. 19 Case law has not expressly set out what is to be included in a notice with respect to administrative segregation, but since such standards have been articulated with respect to disciplinary segregation, we see no reason to establish separate standards for each. The Supreme Court has held that while prisoners are entitled to the protection of procedural due process in the context of a disciplinary hearing, the Due Process Clause in no way implies that these rights are not subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). The full panoply of rights due a defendant during a criminal trial are not available in a prison disciplinary hearing. See id. Yet, as explained in Wolff, at least the minimum requirements of procedural due process appropriate for the circumstances must be observed. Id. at 558. 20 Minimum requirements, we think, include a notice that is something more than a mere formality. See Benitez v. Wolff, 985 F.2d 662, 665 (2d Cir. 1993). The effect of the notice should be to compel the charging officer to be [sufficiently] specific as to the misconduct with which the inmate is charged to inform the inmate of what he is accused of doing so that he can prepare a defense to those charges and not be made to explain away vague charges set out in a misbehavior report. McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 940 n.11 (2d Cir. 1977). 21 Plaintiff acknowledges he received written notice of the charges. His challenge is directed towards the district court's finding that it was sufficient. The notice indicated Taylor was being considered for close custody based on his past admission to outside law enforcement about involvement with [the] Latin Kings, recent tension in B-Unit involving gang activity, and statements by independent confidential informants. Taylor insists such information was too vague to allow him to prepare an adequate defense to the charges. 22 We agree. The notice does not contain specific allegations of conduct indicating current involvement with the Latin Kings, nor does it indicate which of his actions while incarcerated formed the basis for believing him to be a member of a security risk group. As noted, his FOIA request for disclosure of evidence and his request for the hearing officer to describe the tension were denied on the basis of confidentiality. Thus, Taylor had before him only these vague, unspecific charges to defend against. This sort of notice falls short of its function as set forth in Wolff. See 418 U.S. at 564 (Part of the function of notice is to give the charged party a chance to marshal the facts in his defense and to clarify what the charges are, in fact.). Even in cases involving administrative segregation based upon a prisoner's membership in a gang, sufficient notice cannot simply recite vague or conclusory allegations of recent tension . . . involving gang activity. Rather, to be sufficient, notice must inform the defendant of more specific facts underlying the allegation that he is suspected of gang membership, for example, a report of contact with known gang members. Specific facts underlying allegations of current member involvement were especially important here, because Hearing Officer Soto expressly acknowledged Taylor's insistence that he had formally renounced membership in the Latin Kings on March 24, 1999, and that he no longer had any contact with the group. 23 Although the hearing requirement for placement in administrative segregation may be met by an informal, nonadversary proceeding, Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 476, it is a bedrock requirement of due process that such hearing be held at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). A hearing is not meaningful if a prisoner is given inadequate information about the basis of the charges against him. A prisoner should not, as Taylor was, have to guess what conduct forms the basis for the charges against him. See Brown v. Plaut, 131 F.3d 163, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (If [an inmate] was not provided an accurate picture of what was at stake in the hearing, then he was not given his due process.). 24 Here we have no doubt that plaintiff misunderstood what charges were leveled against him. For example, the plaintiff testified, and introduced witness testimony, on matters concerning a wholly unrelated disciplinary incident, even though he had been assigned an advocate to assist in preparing a relevant defense. Hence no remand for factual findings is necessary. Cf. id. at 171-72 (remanding case to determine whether plaintiff inmate understood charges against him). The notice, the contents of which are not in dispute, was deficient as a matter of law. 25 We must add that in questioning the sufficiency of the notice, we do not mean to imply that prison officials should have divulged the identity of the confidential informants, or that Taylor was entitled to have the informants testify as witnesses. Cf. Giakoumelos v. Coughlin, 88 F.3d 56, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1996) (reasoning that confidential informant's testimony in prison disciplinary hearing need not be disclosed because the requirements of prison security are unique).
26 Although the issue of notice is sufficient to warrant a remand, we are also troubled by the district court's conclusion that the decision supporting Taylor's close custody designation was based on some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985) (holding that to satisfy due process, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board); Connecticut Dep't of Correction Admin. Directive 6.14, ¶9B (incorporating a some evidence standard). 27 In the Inmate Security Risk Group Member/Safety Threat Member determination form, Hearing Officer Soto recites that her conclusion is based in part on the confidential information received from informants. The form also indicates that she relied upon an incident on July 27, 1994 when Taylor was housed at Hartford Correctional Center. No details about that incident are included in the findings. Further, while the hearing officer refers to attached statements in connection with the confidential information and the Hartford incident, no such statements were attached to the copies of the determination form filed with the district court. 28 To support a finding based on confidential information, we have held that an informant's testimony will suffice at least where there has been some examination of indicia relevant to an informant's credibility. See Giakoumelos, 88 F.3d at 61. Requiring an independent credibility assessment ensures not only a fair hearing and discipline based on reliable evidence, but also places a minimal burden on prison officials conducting such hearings, with the assurance that judicial review is available. 29 In the case at hand, no such assessment is included in the determination form regarding the reliability of the confidential informants upon whose statements Lt. Soto based Taylor's placement into close custody. Nor does the form indicate that she reviewed the confidential informants' statements. While Capt. Shipman's affidavit on defendants' summary judgment motion states he did determine reliability, the determination form lists as witnesses neither Shipman nor any prison official who had contact with the confidential informants. Shipman's affidavit submitted to the district court two years after Taylor's hearing does not serve as a suitable basis for making a credibility determination. 30 Moreover, even though Lt. Soto also relied upon the details of an incident involving plaintiff at Hartford Correctional Center, the statement to which she refers was not submitted to the district court or to us. Without such documentation, combined with the absence of any contemporaneous findings as to the reliability of the confidential informants, we are left to speculate how the decision to place Taylor in close custody was supported by some evidence as required by federal law and state regulations. Thus, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants was improper for this reason as well.