DocketNumber: No. CV99-033 71 59 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3132-y
Judges: HOLDEN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/26/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On October 14, 1998, the petitioner received notification that a SRGA CT Page 3132-z hearing was to be held on October 16, 1998, based on the information obtained from an internal investigation and confidential informants. On October 16, 1998, a disciplinary hearing was conducted with Lieutenant Emmanuel serving as the hearing officer. Lieutenant Emmanuel allowed the petitioner to testify and reviewed the charges and evidence against the petitioner before making his decision. He rejected, however, the petitioner's request to enter certain documents into evidence to refute the claims contained in the disciplinary investigation report, believing that there was sufficient evidence for his findings. Lieutenant Emmanuel proceeded to find the petitioner guilty of the stated violations and imposed sanctions of ninety days loss of good time, sixty days loss of visits, thirty days confinement to quarters and fifteen days of punitive segregation with time served.
On October 16, 1998, the same day as the disciplinary hearing, the petitioner appealed the decision of the hearing officer to the warden claiming that he was not allowed the opportunity to present witnesses or evidence to prove his innocence. On November 12, 1998, the petitioner's appeal was denied.
On May 26, 1999, the petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Superior Court in Danbury alleging, inter alia, that the disciplinary hearing held on October 16, 1998, in which he was found guilty of SRGA, violated substantive principles of due process. On February 16, 2000, the respondent, John J. Armstrong, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction, filed a return to the petitioner and two special defenses. In his first special defense, the respondent alleges that the petitioner received all required due process at the disciplinary hearing. In his second special defense, the respondent alleges that any claims of the petitioner which do not pertain to the loss of good time are moot since the petitioner has not been incarcerated at the MacDougall Correctional Institution since October 21, 1998.
On March 29, 2000, the petitioner filed an amended petition alleging, inter alia, that since the filing of the original writ of habeas corpus, the Department of Correction has transferred him from one correctional institution to another, thus interfering with his ability to complete the recommended programs for renunciation as a so-called security risk group member.
On October 10, 2000, the respondent filed an amended return and three special defenses.1 In his third special defense, the respondent alleges that any claims concerning the petitioner's designation as a security risk group safety threat member are not cognizable in a habeas CT Page 3132-aa corpus forum because such concerns deal with a classification rather than a protected liberty interest.
The petitioner claims that he was deprived of due process of law in that the hearing officer's notice of decision was inadequate, he was denied the right to introduce into evidence the testimony of witnesses favorable to his claim of innocence and he was denied the right to review and introduce into evidence the videotape of a camera allegedly situated in the area of the alleged incident.
The decisional context of Carrasquillo v. Warden, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 331266 (February 25, 2000,Resha, J.) addressed a claim not unlike the petitioner's.
In Carrasquillo, the petitioner received a disciplinary report for SRGA. Carrasquillo v. Warden, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 331266. Specifically, the petitioner was charged with shaking hands with another inmate in a certain manner characteristic to only gang members. Id. An investigation was conducted and a disciplinary hearing was held with a hearing officer. Id. The hearing officer allowed the petitioner to testify, read the statements of two inmate witnesses and reviewed the disciplinary report, investigation report and advocate report before making his decision. Id. He rejected, however, the petitioner's claim to review a videotape of the alleged incident, believing there was sufficient evidence for his findings. Id. The petitioner was found guilty of the stated violation and sanctioned accordingly. Id.
The essence of the petitioner's claim in Carrasquillo, which is the same as the petitioner's claim in the present case, was that he was deprived of due process of law by the fact that the hearing officer denied him the right to review and introduce into evidence certain documents refuting the evidence against him, including, but not limited to, the videotape of a camera situated in the area of the alleged incident. Carrasguillo v. Warden, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CT Page 3132-ab 331266.
Two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Wolff v. McDonnell,
The specific holdings of Superintendent v. Hill, supra,
Turning to the facts of the present case, this court concludes that the petitioner had adequate notice of the charges against him as evidenced by his signature on the security risk group membership hearing notification form provided to him prior to the disciplinary hearing held on October 16, 1998. The petitioner was provided with a disciplinary hearing before a hearing officer prior to any sanctions being imposed against him. The petitioner was provided with an advocate who attended the disciplinary hearing and the petitioner was allowed to testify on his own behalf. The hearing officer read the statements of the inmate witnesses and reviewed the disciplinary report, the investigative report and advocate's report before making his decision. The officer rejected the claim of the CT Page 3132-ac petitioner to review the video tape, believing there was sufficient independent evidence for his findings. This court concludes that the disciplinary hearing met the requirements of minimal due process.2
With regard to the petitioner's claims concerning loss of statutory good time due to his confinement in a specialized housing unit, this court concludes that the petitioner's claims are barred by the holding inWheway v. Warden,
Holden, J.