Opinion ID: 770833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Dismissal by the District Court

Text: 14 Defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In a Memorandum and Order dated August 14, 1997 (Decision), the district court granted the motion and dismissed the action. 15 With respect to the claims of excessive force, the district court found that Sims asserted a relatively small number of incidents of use of force by defendants; that no single incident [wa]s severe enough to be considered objectively, sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation; and that the incidents considered together were not sufficiently egregious to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation because the force described in the complaint was not of such a nature as to be considered repugnant to mankind. Decision at 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). 16 As to the claims that Sims was denied due process in the disciplinary hearings, the district court stated that although prisoners maintain a liberty interest in situations in which confinement imposes 'atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,' Decision at 17 (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)), Sims had not alleged any conditions of his confinement that could support a finding that the conditions of his confinement in the SHU were dramatically different from the basic conditions of [his] indeterminate sentence, Decision at 18 (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 In addition, the district court stated that even if the complaint alleged that Sims's confinement to SHU constituted atypical hardship, his claims would nonetheless be dismissed because he did not allege that any of the sentences imposed in the disciplinary hearings had been reversed or invalidated. See Decision at 19 ('[U]nless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated,' any claim for damages under §1983 is not cognizable. (quoting Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997))). 18 The district court also concluded that because the complaint did not allege the violation of a clearly defined right with respect to Sims's confinement in SHU or the manner in which the disciplinary hearings were conducted, Connolly, Coefield, Haponik, Blaetz, Levanduski, Coombe, Smith, and Selsky (collectively the hearing officer defendants) were entitled to qualified immunity. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.