Texeira v. Annucci, 24 N.Y.3d 231 (2014)
When a prison disciplinary hearing violates an inmate’s regulatory right to call a witness, but not necessarily their constitutional rights, remittal for a new hearing may be an appropriate remedy.
Summary
In Texeira v. Annucci, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the proper remedy when a prison disciplinary hearing violates an inmate’s right to call witnesses. The court held that, while expungement of the disciplinary determination might be appropriate for constitutional violations, remittal for a new hearing was suitable where the violation concerned a state regulation requiring the hearing officer to provide a written explanation for denying a witness request. The court emphasized that the record did not clearly establish a constitutional violation, making remittal the more appropriate course of action. This decision clarifies the distinction between constitutional and regulatory violations in the context of prison disciplinary hearings and the remedies available to address them.
Facts
George Texeira, an inmate, was charged with violating prison disciplinary rules. At his hearing, he requested several witnesses, including another inmate, T. T initially refused to testify, claiming he was confused about the location of the incident. Texeira asked the hearing officer to recontact T, which the officer agreed to do. However, when the hearing reconvened, T did not testify, and the officer did not state whether T had been recontacted or what he had said. The hearing officer found Texeira guilty. Texeira argued that his constitutional right to call witnesses was violated and requested expungement of the disciplinary disposition from his prison records.
Procedural History
Texeira initiated an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, which granted his petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter for a new hearing. Texeira appealed, seeking expungement instead of a new hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that a new hearing was the appropriate remedy. Texeira appealed the Appellate Division’s decision to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether expungement is the exclusive remedy for a violation of an inmate’s right to call a witness at a prison disciplinary hearing.
Holding
1. No, because under the specific facts of this case, remittal for a rehearing was the appropriate remedy, and the Court did not reach the issue of whether expungement is the exclusive remedy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals referenced Wolff v. McDonnell, which established that inmates have a limited right to call witnesses in disciplinary proceedings, unless doing so would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. New York’s DOCCS regulations provide additional protections, including a requirement that a hearing officer provide a written statement explaining the denial of a witness request. In this case, the hearing officer violated the regulation by failing to provide such a statement, but the record was unclear as to whether Texeira’s constitutional rights under Wolff were violated. The court stated, “where respondent clearly violated the regulation, but where the Court cannot determine if respondent violated the due process requirements of Wolff, we are unpersuaded that any interplay between section 254.5 and the Federal Constitution mandates expungement.” The court held that, while expungement is an available remedy, it was not mandated here.
Practical Implications
This case highlights the importance of distinguishing between constitutional and regulatory violations in prison disciplinary proceedings. If only regulatory violations occur, remittal for a new hearing might be the appropriate remedy. This case emphasizes that procedural compliance is crucial, especially the provision of written explanations for denying a witness request. Failure to comply with the DOCCS regulations, which provide for more procedural protections than the federal due process requirements, could result in a new hearing even if the constitutional threshold is not met. This case underscores that failure to comply with clear procedural rules may be enough to result in reversal, even without a clear constitutional violation. Attorneys representing inmates in disciplinary hearings must meticulously document all procedural errors and focus on securing the proper remedy based on the specific violations.