Bibiloni v. Roberts, et al.

Summary

This initial review order addresses Kenneth Bibiloni’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims concerning his placement in the Security Risk Group unit at New Haven Correctional Center. The court dismissed his First Amendment claim with prejudice and dismissed his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims without prejudice for failure to allege defendants’ personal involvement. The court granted leave to amend the latter two claims by February 13, 2026.

Holdings

1. Bibiloni's request for injunctive relief against the prison officials was moot because he had been released from custody.
2. Claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
3. Using Bibiloni's social-media posts to designate him as an SRG prisoner did not state a First Amendment claim on the allegations presented, so the claim was dismissed with prejudice.
4. For purposes of initial review, Bibiloni sufficiently alleged that his months-long SRG confinement and conditions constituted an atypical and significant hardship, establishing a protected liberty interest.
5. An incarcerated person facing administrative restrictive confinement must receive some notice of the charges, an opportunity to present views, a proceeding within a reasonable time, and a decision supported by some reliable evidence.
6. The procedural due process claim was dismissed without prejudice because the complaint did not allege facts showing that any named defendant was personally responsible for failing to provide notice or for designating Bibiloni as an SRG prisoner on insufficient evidence.
7. Bibiloni plausibly alleged conditions that could potentially violate the Eighth Amendment, but the claim was dismissed without prejudice because he did not allege the personal involvement of any named defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bibiloni's use of social-media photographs and other electronic communications to designate him as an SRG prisoner stated a First Amendment claim.
2. Whether the allegations concerning lack of notice, inadequate process, and insufficient evidence at the SRG designation hearing stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim.
3. Whether the alleged conditions in the SRG unit stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
4. Whether the named defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations.
5. Whether Bibiloni could obtain injunctive relief after his release from prison and damages against defendants in their official capacities.

Disposition

dismissed