Opinion ID: 2785909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: August 31/September 1, 2011 Incidents

Text: On August 31, 2011, Mr. Goguen was on a telephone call with a federal magistrate judge about another lawsuit. Major Allen interrupted the call and insisted that Mr. Goguen hang up the telephone. When Mr. Goguen tried to explain that he was on the telephone with a federal magistrate judge, Major Allen “took the phone from [Mr. Goguen’s] hand, hung the phone up, told [Mr. Goguen] to put [his] hands behind [his] back, [and] [Mr. Goguen] was handcuffed, shackled and escorted to A[-]pod.”12 Once there, Major Allen informed him that he (Mr. Goguen) would not be threatening other officers with 10 Id. 11 R.83 (Goguen Dep.) at 62. 12 Id. at 17. ‐14‐ lawsuits under his watch.13 When it was determined that Mr. Goguen in fact had been on the telephone with a federal magistrate judge, Mr. Goguen was escorted back to the telephone to resume the call. Also on August 31, Officer Rizzo wrote a disciplinary report and a notice of infraction for a violation of B–13, “Provocation,” for arguing. These charges were later dismissed. The record does not contain either the report or the dismissal. The record does contain, however, an “Administrative Segregation Status Placement” dated August 31, 2011.14 According to that document, Mr. Goguen was placed in segregation by Sergeant Plourd for “continually arguing with Staff in the performance of their duties” and “threatening Staff with lawsuits.”15 The following day, however, Lieutenant Bugbee reviewed the placement and removed Mr. Goguen from A-pod because Major Allen had “advise[d]” that Mr. Goguen did “not pose [a] threat to security.”16 13 See id. at 16–17. 14 R.56-3 at 17. 15 Id. 16 Id. ‐15‐ Mr. Goguen remained in E-pod for a little over three and one-half hours. At that time, officers were conducting a count of the inmates. When officers reached Mr. Goguen’s cell, his back was facing the officers, and he appeared to be urinating. Mr. Goguen later testified that he in fact was urinating during the count. Officer Rizzo wrote a disciplinary report and a notice of infraction for a violation of A–05, “Count.”17 Officer Rizzo also wrote up Mr. Goguen for violations of B–19, “Threatening,” and B–13, “Provocation,” for swearing and calling Officer Rizzo names. Mr. Goguen again was placed in A-pod. On September 1, 2011, Officer Gilblair notified Mr. Goguen of this infraction and asked for Mr. Goguen’s version of the events. On September 8, 2011, Mr. Goguen received notice that a disciplinary hearing for the incident was scheduled for September 13, 2011. Officer Crafts presided at the hearing, at which Mr. Goguen testified. As part of this hearing, Officer Crafts reviewed answers to written questions posed by Mr. Goguen to his cell mate. Following the hearing, 17 R.56-11 (SCJ Policy-“Inmate Discipline”) at 70. The policy defines this violation as follows: “A-05 Count-Non presence at or interfering with the taking of an inmate count, either formal or informal.” Id. ‐16‐ Officer Crafts found Mr. Goguen guilty of the count violation, but not guilty of the threatening and provocation violations. For punishment, Officer Crafts imposed a $25 fine and three days’ disciplinary segregation. Major Allen denied Mr. Goguen’s appeal. Mr. Goguen’s administrative segregation initially was reviewed on September 4 by Lieutenant Campbell, who determined that Mr. Goguen should remain in A-pod. Mr. Goguen received notice to that effect and was advised that his placement would be reviewed again on September 9. At that hearing, Sergeant Plourd presided, and Officer French and non-defendant Officer Ducharme acted as committee members. The parties dispute the testimony that was given. According to the defendants, Mr. Goguen testified that there was an ongoing investigation concerning Officer Rizzo and other staff at the SCJ.18 The committee determined that Mr. Goguen should remain in administrative segregation until the investigation into the incident concluded. 18 Mr. Goguen now denies saying this; according to Mr. Goguen, he testified at the hearing that Officer Rizzo’s statements should be investigated. Mr. Goguen, however, does not point to any sworn testimony in the record to support his denial. ‐17‐ Mr. Goguen’s administrative segregation was again reviewed on September 16, with Lieutenant Campbell as hearing officer and non-defendant Officers Marose and Davis as committee members. At the hearing, the committee considered evidence that there was no investigation of SCJ officers pending, Mr. Goguen had no new write-ups, and he had been medically cleared. The committee determined that Mr. Goguen should be removed from administrative segregation, but placed on disciplinary segregation for an old write-up. On September 21, 2011, Mr. Goguen was transferred back to E-pod, where he remained until October 21, 2011.