U.S. District Court, Western District of N.Y. Case Summaries:

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Jan 15, 2008

U.S. District Court, Western District of N.Y.

Due Process

Corrections -- Misbehavior

Lebron v. Artus

06-CV-0532(VEB)

Judge Bianchini

Issue: What are the due process requirements for a prison disciplinary action on the issues of evidence, hearing officer impartiality and sentencing?

Background: The inmate petitioner was disciplined in 2003 for improper use of the prison library. He sent a direct request for materials to an outside library instead of making his request through the prison. After the hearing officer found him guilty of the offense, he commenced this petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the disciplinary determination that resulted in his loss of "good time" credits. The petitioner alleges he was convicted after the production of insufficient evidence, convicted by an officer who was not impartial, and his sentence exceeded that delineated by the regulations of the New York department of corrections.

Ruling: The court, after reviewing the lower standard necessary to satisfy due process in a corrections setting whereby guilt may be found based only on "some evidence," dispenses with the petitioner's claims. The evidence was sufficient, he had ample notice of the action against him, the hearing officer was not biased within the more lenient standard allowed for corrections hearings and a sentence that exceeds state protocol does not give rise to a constitutional habeas claim.

Elvin Lebron, pro se, and Darren Longo, of the office of the Attorney General, for the respondent

ADA

Employer Hardship

Bogner v. Wackenhut Corp.

05-CV-6171

Judge Telesca

Issue: Is a plaintiff "disabled" under the Americans with Disabilities Act when the plaintiff's epilepsy impairs no major life activity including work save his inability to work the night shift?

Background: The plaintiff applied for a position as a security guard at the Ginna Power Plant, which required flexibility in terms of availability for all shifts and ability to be called in on short notice. The plaintiff suffers from epilepsy although it has been successfully treated with medication and he has not experienced a seizure since 2003. The defendant asserts it would be a hardship to hire the plaintiff because he is unable to work anything but the day shift, due to his doctor's orders, when all guards at the plant are required to rotate shifts.

Ruling: The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie showing of discrimination because he failed to demonstrate any disability under the ADA. No major life activity was impaired and there was no class of work the plaintiff was fundamentally unable to perform. His confinement to daytime work is not sufficient. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Theodore S. Kantor, of Bilgore, Reich, Levine & Kantor, for the plaintiff and Cheryl Smith Fisher, of Magavern, Magavern and Grimm, for the defendant

Failure to Prosecute

Prisoner Rights

Rivera v. Washburn

04-CV-6279L

Judge Larimer

Issue: This decision concerns whether a failure by the plaintiff to prosecute his action that stems from alleged rights violations as a prisoner for more than a year makes dismissal appropriate upon a motion by the defendants.

Background: The plaintiff was released from custody subsequent to his filing of this action alleging violation of his [section] 1983 rights. He spent time in homeless shelters and then found himself imprisoned again at a new address where he did not immediately receive any legal correspondence. During this time he failed to further prosecute his suit and the defendants moved to dismiss.

Ruling: Taking into account the plaintiff's pro se status and relocation, the court denies the motion to dismiss finding that a resolution on the merits is preferred and dismissal is a remedy for extreme circumstances.

Jose Rivera, pro se, and Benjamin A. Bruce of the office of the Attorney General for the defendants

Judicial Recusal

Bias -- Judicial Conduct

McCenzie v. McClatchie

05-CV-618A(F)

Judge Foschio

Issue: Which facets of judicial conduct are amenable to claims of prejudice? What type of bias must be demonstrated?

Background: The plaintiff is suing for violation of his rights as a prisoner. Upon motion by the defendants, a three-month extension was granted by the court for filing dispositive motions. The plaintiff was not notified of this motion and did not submit any argument on the question. The extension seemed to contradict the scheduling order, which stated that any extension must be upon "joint motion" and for good cause. The plaintiff filed a motion for recusal alleging bias on the part of Judge Foschio for failing to notify the plaintiff or request comment on the defendants' request.

Ruling: Most claims of bias arise from extrajudicial conduct and not judicial conduct as is the case in this matter. The rule for recusal is such a situation is the "clear inability to render fair judgment." No showing of a pervasive bias is shown by the plaintiff and the motion is denied.

Leonard McCenzie, pro se, and Ann C. Williams, of the office of the Attorney General, for the defendants