Cynthia L. Pollick v. Lackawanna County Prison, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Cynthia L. Pollick’s motion to recuse all judges of the district. The court dismissed her § 1983 complaint without prejudice because the requested relief was habeas in nature, the claims were moot or unexhausted to the extent construed as a habeas petition, and the disciplinary sanction did not implicate a protected due-process interest. The court granted in forma pauperis status and denied leave to amend as futile.

Holdings

1. Recusal of the undersigned judge was not warranted because the judge had not participated in Pollick's prior disciplinary proceeding or any earlier disciplinary complaints against her, and there was no basis to question the judge's impartiality.
2. A request for release from imprisonment and invalidation of a disciplinary charge challenges the fact or duration of custody and must be pursued through a petition for writ of habeas corpus rather than a civil-rights action under § 1983.
3. To the extent the complaint could be construed as a habeas petition, the claim was moot because Pollick had been released from custody.
4. Any habeas claim was also subject to dismissal because Pollick had not exhausted available state-court remedies and had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances excusing exhaustion.
5. A fourteen-day period of disciplinary custody, as alleged, was not an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to support a due-process claim.
6. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the complaint did not assert any cognizable civil-rights claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district judge and all judges of the Middle District of Pennsylvania were required to recuse themselves based on a prior disciplinary proceeding involving Pollick.
2. Whether Pollick's requests for release from custody and invalidation of a misconduct charge were cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or instead had to be pursued through habeas corpus.
3. Whether any habeas claim was subject to dismissal as moot and for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.
4. Whether a fourteen-day disciplinary-custody sanction constituted an atypical and significant hardship supporting a due-process claim.
5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.

Disposition

dismissed