Jose Harris v. Thomas A. Coughlin, III Daniel A. Senkowski, Stanley Berg, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Jose Harris v. Thomas A. Coughlin, III Daniel A. Senkowski, Stanley Berg, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2022–2024 · …reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation-namely the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him-does not suffice to defeat summary judgment. ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
78 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ruffino v. Coleman (ctd, 2024-07-22) · Strongest negative: Emery Air Freight, Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 295 (ca2, 1999-07-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Emery Air Freight, Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 295
2d Cir. · 1999 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580, 875 F.Supp. 245, 252 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (erroneously holding that United Kingdom overruled CBS), aff'd, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished table decision).
discussed Cited "but see" Emery Air Freight, Corporation v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Local 295
2d Cir. · 1999 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580, 875 F. Supp. 245, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (erroneously holding that United Kingdom overruled CBS), aff'd, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision).
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Ruffino v. Coleman
D. Conn. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation-namely the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him-does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Conquistador v. Martin
D. Conn. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation-namely the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him-does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Conquistador v. Syed
D. Conn. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation-namely the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him-does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Conquistador v. Hurdle
D. Conn. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation-namely, the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him-does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.
cited Cited "see" Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Juris. § 3827; see Williams v. Nathan, 897 F. Supp. 72, 77 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996).
cited Cited "see" Gopaul v. Racette
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996) (summary order).
cited Cited "see" Gopaul v. Racette
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996) (summary order).
discussed Cited "see" McClelland v. Kirkpatrick
W.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 , 68 S.Ct. 1252 , 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) (“The [petitioner’s] sentence being within the limits set by the statute, its severity would not be grounds for relief here even on direct review of the conviction, much less on review of the state court’s denial of habeas corpus.”); White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where ... the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff’d mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989)); acco…
discussed Cited "see" Glover v. Burge
W.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 , 68 S.Ct. 1252 , 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) (“The [petitioner’s] sentence being within the limits set by the statute, its severity would not be grounds for relief here even on direct review of the conviction, much less on review of the state court’s denial of habeas corpus.”); White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989)); …
cited Cited "see" Willett v. Berbary
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Hogan v. West
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Barnard v. BURBARY
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Dalcin v. New York
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346669 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Horne v. Perlman
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Stephanski v. Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Burden v. Filion
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Seneca Beverage Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc.
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ayers v. Stewart, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346049 (2nd Cir.1996); Estevez-Yalcin v. Children’s Village, 331 F.Supp.2d 170 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Sigel v. U.S., 2003 WL 21696218 (E.D.N.Y.2003).
cited Cited "see" Brown v. Donnelly
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346669 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Williams v. State of New York
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Steele v. Filion
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Martin v. Lord
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Archie v. Strack
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Madore v. Beaver
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346669 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Holmes v. Ricks
W.D.N.Y. · 2004 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Tobias v. Portuondo
W.D.N.Y. · 2004 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346669 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Snitzel v. Murry
W.D.N.Y. · 2004 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346669 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Allen v. Filion
W.D.N.Y. · 2004 · signal: accord · confidence high
White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); accord Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
discussed Cited "see" Ashby v. Senkowski
E.D.N.Y · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ross v. Gavin, 101 F.3d 687 , 1996 WL 346669, at *1 (2d Cir.1996) (“It is well settled that ‘[n]o federal constitutional issue is presented where ... the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law’ ”) (quoting White, 969 F.2d at 1383 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harnage v. Brighthaupt
D. Conn. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Ayers v. Stewart, 101 F.3d 687, at *1 (2d Cir.1996) (“[Plaintiffs] reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation — namely, the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him— does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.”); Ziemba v. Thomas, 390 F.Supp.2d 136, 157 (D.Conn.2005) (“Temporal proximity alone is not sufficient for the plaintiffs claim to survive summary judgment.”); Bryant v. Goord, No. 99 CIV. 9442, 2002 WL 553556 , at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roseboro v. Gillespie
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ayers v. Stewart, No. 96-2013, 101 F.3d 687 (table), 1996 WL 346049 at *1 (2d Cir. June 25, 1996) (Plaintiffs “allegation that a meeting had transpired among the defendants, during which they allegedly agreed to confine [plaintiff], is conclusory and is totally unsupported by the record.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. Goord
S.D.N.Y. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ayers v. Stewart, 101 F.3d 687 , No. 96-2013, 1996 WL 346049, at *1 (2d Cir.1999) (Plaintiffs “reliance on circumstantial evidence of retaliation — namely, the proximity of the disciplinary action to his complaint where no misbehavior reports were previously filed against him — does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jose Harris
v.
Thomas A. Coughlin, III Daniel A. Senkowski, Stanley Berg
96-2007.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 25, 1996.
101 F.3d 687
Unpublished
2 passages pin-cited by 4 cases
Pinpoint authority: #18,811 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (4)

101 F.3d 687

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Jose HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III; Daniel A. Senkowski, Stanley Berg,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-2007.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 25, 1996.

Gilbert Di Lucia, Cooperstown, NY, for appellant.

Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Attorney General, Albany, NY, for appellees.

N.D.N.Y.

AFFIRMED.

Before OAKES, ALTIMARI, and WALKER, Jr., Circuit Judges.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Pooler, J.), and was argued.

1

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

2

Plaintiff-appellant Jose Harris appeals from a judgment of the district court denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. Harris brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1986 alleging that a prison disciplinary proceeding held on May 26, 1992 violated his constitutional rights.

3

During the relevant period, the plaintiff was a prisoner at Clinton Correctional Facility. On May 20, 1992, the plaintiff was charged with conspiring to murder a correction lieutenant. The plaintiff was charged with violating Rule 1.00, which provides that "All Penal Law offenses are prohibited and may be referred to law enforcement agencies for prosecution in the courts. In addition, departmental sanctions may be imposed for criminal behavior." 7 NYCRR 270.2(A). The plaintiff was also charged with violating Rule 100.11, which states that "Inmates shall not assault, inflict or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon any staff member." 7 NYCRR 270.2(B)(1)(ii). After a hearing, the plaintiff was found guilty and received a penalty of five years in the Special Housing Unit with loss of privileges and two and a half years recommended loss of good time.

4

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849 (1991). We draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. Partnership, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir.1994). Harris argues on appeal that 1) he was charged with a violation of the penal law and his Sixth Amendment rights were thereby violated because he did not have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, he was not given sufficient information concerning the nature of the accusation, he was not confronted with the witnesses against him, he was not permitted to cross-examine hostile witness, and he was not provided with counsel for his defense, and 2) under separation of powers principles, the judiciary cannot assign its duties to the executive branch. We affirm the grant of summary judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court.

5

The plaintiff's primary claim on appeal is that he was entitled to a criminal judicial proceeding with the attendant procedural protections because he was charged with having violated Rule 1.00 which prohibits "all Penal Law offenses." "Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). The plaintiff claims that "if a crime is committed by a prisoner in violation of the New York Penal Code, the prisoner MUST first be tried in a court of law." However, the incorporation of the definitional provisions of the penal code by the prison rules does not change the status of the proceedings.

6

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing substantially for the reasons stated by the district court and by the magistrate judge in his report-recommendation. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.