Demmerick E. Brown v. Karen Stapleton, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia considers cross-motions for summary judgment in a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning a $7 disciplinary fine and alleged due process violations. The court holds that any denial of an opportunity to present witnesses or evidence was harmless and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in 2020. The court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies Brown’s motion.

Holdings

1. The Due Process Clause does not require an inmate to cross-examine an accuser or receive an appellate review of a prison disciplinary decision.
2. A procedural due process error in a prison disciplinary hearing is harmless when the excluded evidence would not have helped the inmate's defense or affected the outcome.
3. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, in August 2020, it was not clearly established that the Constitution required the asserted procedures before imposing a small disciplinary fine deducted from an inmate trust account.
4. Brown was not entitled to summary judgment because his unverified and conclusory allegations did not constitute admissible evidence establishing a constitutional violation or eliminating genuine factual disputes.

Questions Presented

1. What procedural protections were due before Brown could be deprived of $7 from his inmate trust account in a prison disciplinary proceeding?
2. Whether any failure to provide Brown an opportunity to present witnesses or documentary, audio, or video evidence was harmless.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted due process right was not clearly established in August 2020.
4. Whether Brown was entitled to summary judgment on his § 1983 claims.

Disposition

other