Court Opinion

ID: 2964103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:31.719689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.644039
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1801

                                 BRENDAN MCGUINNESS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             LARRY DUBOIS, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Brendan M. McGuinness on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Nancy Ankers  White, Special  Assistant Attorney General,  William
            ___________________                                        _______
        D. Saltzman and Rosemary Ford on brief for appellees.
        ___________     _____________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Brendan McGuinness has filed an appeal from
                 __________

            two separate actions,  filed pursuant  to 42  U.S.C.    1983,

            which  were consolidated in the district court.  The district

            court  rulings can be found  at McGuinness v.  Dubois, 891 F.
                                            __________     ______

            Supp. 25 (D.  Mass. 1995)  and McGuinness v.  Dubois, 893  F.
                                           __________     ______

            Supp. 2 (D. Mass. 1995).  Upon careful review of the parties'

            briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm.

            1.   McGuinness has appealed the grant of summary judgment in

            favor of the defendant prison officials on his two-part claim

            that his  six-month confinement  (imposed for his  attempt to

            flush his sweatshirt down his cell  toilet) to the Department

            Disciplinary Unit (the DDU) at the Massachusetts Correctional

            Institute at Cedar Junction violated Mass. Gen. L. ch. 127,  

            401  [hereinafter  "the   isolation  statute"]  because   (i)
              1

            conditions  in   the  DDU  amount  to   isolation  and  their

            application  in  excess of  15  days  violates the  isolation

            statute  and (ii) confinement to  the DDU is for disciplinary

            purposes and, thus pursuant  to that statute, confinement may

            not exceed 15  days for any one offense.   The district court

                                
            ____________________

               1Mass. Gen. L. ch. 127,   40 states:
               1
                           For  the enforcement  of discipline,
                      an inmate in any correctional institution
                      of   the   commonwealth   may,   at   the
                      discretion  of   its  superintendent,  be
                      confined,  for  a  period  not  to exceed
                      fifteen days for  any one offence,  to an
                      isolation unit.
                           Such  isolation  units must  provide
                      light, ventilation  and adequate sanitary
                      facilities,  may  contain  a  minimum  of
                      furniture, and shall provide at least one
                      full meal daily.

                                         -3-

            concluded  that  isolation and  confinement  in  the DDU  are

            distinct  forms of incarceration  authorized by  statute and,

            thus,  McGuinness'  six-month  term  of  confinement  did not

            impermissibly   conflict   with   the    isolation   statute.

            McGuinness v. Dubois, 891 F. Supp. at 27-29.
            __________    ______

                 We  affirm, but on a different  ground.  Medina-Munoz v.
                                                          ____________

            R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1990)  (in
            _________________________

            reviewing a  summary  judgment, a  court  of appeals  is  not

            limited to  the district court's reasoning, but may affirm on

            any independently sufficient  ground).  McGuinness'  argument

            on  appeal  is  a  straightforward claim,  unadorned  by  any

            reference  to constitutional  underpinnings, that  the prison

            regulation  authorizing a sentence to the DDU in excess of 15

            days, see 103 CMR 430.25(3)(d), violates state law.  However,
                  ___

            "[m]erely  erroneous  applications of  state statutes  do not

            present a  question  of federal  constitutional magnitude  as

            long  as there is an adequate state remedy."  Colon-Rivera v.
                                                          ____________

            Puerto Rico Dep't of Soc. Serv., 736 F.2d 804, 806 (1st  Cir.
            _______________________________

            1984)  (per  curiam), cert.  denied,  469  U.S. 1112  (1985).
                                  _____________

            There  is no evidence, indeed no contention, of an inadequate

            state remedy  in  this  case.   See  also Coyne  v.  City  of
                                            _________ _____      ________

            Somerville, 972 F.2d 440, 444 (1st Cir. 1992) ("It is bedrock
            __________

            law  in this circuit, however, that violations of state law -

            even where arbitrary, capricious,  or undertaken in bad faith

                                         -4-

            -  do not, without more,  give rise to  denial of substantive

            due process under the U.S. Constitution.").

            2.   McGuinness has also appealed the district court's ruling

            that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on his

            claim that the  denial of  his request for  witnesses at  his

            April 7, 1993 prison disciplinary hearing (for his assault of

            a  prison guard) violated due  process -- a  ruling that also

            permitted the defendants to rehear  that disciplinary matter.

            McGuinness  v. Dubois, 891 F. Supp. at 31-36.  The defendants
            __________     ______

            have  not  appealed the  grant of  a declaratory  judgment in

            McGuinness' favor that  held that they had violated  a prison

            regulation, which  the district  court construed as  a state-

            created liberty interest protected  by the Due Process Clause

            and which the court  interpreted to require an individualized

            assessment  regarding  whether  calling a  particular  inmate

            witness would be unduly  hazardous to institutional safety or

            correctional goals.  We have  no cause, therefore, to  review

            that declaratory  judgment.  But see McGuinness v. Dubois, 75
                                         _______ __________    ______

            F.3d 794, 798-800 (1st Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (reserving the

            question  whether  reliance  on  an  across-the-board  prison

            policy  denying  requests  for live  testimony  from  general

            population  inmates  at  disciplinary  hearings   held  in  a

            segregated  wing violates  federal  due process  and, on  the

            facts of the  case, reversing  the court's finding  of a  due

                                         -5-

            process  violation).2   But,  as  our own  recitation  of the
                                2

            state  of the  law reveals  a  less than  clearly established

            constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have

            known,  see id. at 799-800,  we conclude that,  in any event,
                    ___ ___

            the  district court's  conclusion  that  the  defendants  are

            entitled to qualified immunity is correct.  And,  we perceive

            neither  error  nor abuse  of  discretion  in permitting  the

            defendants to rehear the disciplinary matter.

            3.   Finally, McGuinness appeals  the district court's ruling

            that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on his

            claim  that the  deprivation  of "yard-time,"  which, due  to

            McGuinness' repetitive  recalcitrant behavior, resulted  in a

            cumulative sanction  of approximately one year,  violated the

            Eighth  Amendment.   We affirm,  essentially for  the reasons

            stated  in  the  district  court's opinion.    McGuinness  v.
                                                           __________

            Dubois, 893 F. Supp. at 3-4.
            ______

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                
            ____________________

               2Our opinion  in McGuinness v.  Dubois, 75  F.3d 794  (1st
               2                __________     ______
            Cir.  1996) (per  curiam) issued  after the  district court's
            rulings underlying the current appeal.

                                         -6-