Opinion ID: 167613
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Absence of M aterial Dispute of Fact

Text: Before beginning any legal analysis, we must decide what, if any, material facts are in dispute and, therefore, whether summary judgment disposition on the legal issues presented was appropriate. For the following reasons, we conclude no dispute of material fact sufficient to overcome a summary judgment determination exists in this case. First, because the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment raised the issue of qualified immunity, M r. Jordan maintained the burden to prove a constitutional violation occurred. W hile we view the evidence in the light most favorable to M r. Jordan as the nonmoving party and generally consider his verified complaint stating personal knowledge of facts as an affidavit, his -19- complaint does little to refute the substantial declaratory and documentary evidence presented by the prison officials contradicting his own self-serving account of what happened. W hile he provided inmate declarations to rebut the overwhelming documentary evidence he remained in the dry cell for less than one day, he has not appealed the conditions of that confinement in his counseled briefs on appeal, but asks only that the duration of that confinement be included in the total five-year duration of his administrative detention. Thus, we will consider the initial ten days of his confinement only as part of his total five-year administrative detention. See Giano v. Selsky, 238 F.3d 223, 226 (2d Cir. 2001) (considering total aggregate period of administrative detention, given two periods of confinement at different facilities were based on the same administrative rationale). As to the rest of the evidence submitted by the prison officials, it is clear M r. Jordan’s verified complaint is insufficient to create a dispute of material fact as to the conditions and restrictions of his other confinement in administrative detention when compared with his own admissions and the compelling documentary and regulatory evidence offered by the prison officials. Specifically, with respect to the first nine months of his detention in the special housing unit, prison officials showed M r. Jordan received the same privileges as the general population, other than access to group recreation, and, as clearly -20- show n by prison records, he refused regularly-offered non-group exercise sessions. As to the loss of certain commissary privileges during his nine-month stay at the special housing unit, prison officials, through documentary evidence, established M r. Jordan committed several infractions during that period of time, for which he received a total of seventy-five days of disciplinary segregation, which included the loss of property and commissary privileges. M r. Jordan’s verified complaint does not sufficiently refute these facts. Next, with respect to his administrative detention in the administrative maximum facility, M r. Jordan alleged that, unlike him, other inmates under investigation remained in the general prison population, but he provided no actual examples of any of the inmates to whom he refers. As to the conditions or restrictions associated with his confinement in the administrative maximum facility, M r. Jordan admitted he received many of the privileges afforded other inmates, and the only specific restrictions alleged involved his lack of access to a radio or television at different times and reduction of his exercise to two and onehalf hours per week. How ever, he failed to counter the prison officials’ compelling evidence establishing he received an opportunity for five hours of exercise per week, which he frequently refused, and lost his privileges to radio and televison as a result of disciplinary sanctions imposed for various rule infractions, including keeping a razor blade in his cell. M r. Jordan also failed to -21- provide evidence to rebut the prison officials' evidence showing he and other inmates in administrative maximum confinement experienced restrictions and conditions comparable to those of the general population inmates, with the exception of one less social call per month and possibly seven hours a week less recreation time. Similarly, they contradicted his allegation he experienced restrictions similar to inmates in disciplinary detention or the control unit, to which M r. Jordan provided no substantive evidence to rebut. Finally, no dispute of fact exists over the length of time M r. Jordan spent in administrative detention, which amounted to almost five years, or 1,825 days. H aving found no genuine issue of material fact exists for a jury determination, w e conclude summary judgment is an appropriate means of resolving M r. Jordan’s Bivens action and proceed to determining whether the prison officials, as the moving parties, are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law with respect to the liberty interest claimed.