Cluster 2143716

But an inmate “has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest.” Brown, 2019 WL 4194432 , at *5 (quoting Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“The Second Circuit has long held, however, that a prison inmate has no constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a m…

“A State’s sovereign immunity is not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ,” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and “Connecticut has not waived its sovereign immunity” under Section 1983, Wagner, 599 F. Supp. 2d at 238 .

Sept. 25, 2023) (alteration adopted) (quoting Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)); see also Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997) (same); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986) (observing that a “prison inmate has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest”).

And even affording the Plaintiff special pro se deference and considering the statements in his opposition papers as though they had been pleaded, his newly-asserted “facts” fail to come close to stating any claim against the Union, Pro se Plaintiffs are bound by Twombly’s strictures just as represented parties are, Thomas v, Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases).

With respect to Section 1983, “[a] State’s sovereign immunity is not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

With respect to Section 1983 and Section 1985, “[a] State’s sovereign immunity is not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ,” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and there is “no express congressional abrogation of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 actions,” Fincher v. State of Fla. Dep't of Lab. & Emp.

“A State’s sovereign immunity is not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ,” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and “Connecticut has not waived its sovereign immunity” under Section 1983, Wagner, 599 F.Supp.2d at 238 .

“This principle also applies to allegedly ‘false testimony by corrections personnel at prison disciplinary hearings.’” (2021 Op. 12 (quoting Thomas, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 499 (collecting cases)); see also Brown v. Venettozzi, No. 18-CV-2628, 2019 WL 4194432 , at *5 (S.D.N.Y.

Although Plaintiff alleges that Nucatola authored a false misbehavior report, “[t]he Second Circuit has long held . . . that a prison inmate has no constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report.” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A] prison inmate has no general constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report”); Fr…

Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see Cole v. Holloway, 631 F. App’x 185, 186 (4th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging “the general legal proposition that a false disciplinary charge cannot serve as the basis for a constitutional claim”).

Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see Cole v. Holloway, 631 F. App’x 185, 186 (4th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging “the general legal proposition that a false disciplinary charge cannot serve as the basis for a constitutional claim”).

Feb. 17, 2015) (“There is no indication in Second Circuit or Supreme Court case law that a hearing officer must make an independent evaluation of the basis for the refusal to testify.”). no constitutional right to be free from “false testimony by corrections personnel at prison disciplinary hearings.” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

However, in the absence of such an explanation, “defendants cannot justify a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim.” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also Rossi v. Stevens, No. 04-CV-1836, 2005 WL 8146896 , at *12 (S.D.N.Y.

Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see Cole v. Holloway, 631 F. App’x 185 , 186 7 To the extent Walker claims these defendants are liable for their responses to grievances and/or complaints or their failure to investigate grievances and/or complaints, these allegations also fail to state a claim.

To establish a Due Process claim, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he possessed a liberty interest and (2) that the defendant(s) deprived him of that interest as a result of insufficient process.” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Cf. Mitchell v. Senkowski, 158 F. App’x 346, 349 (2d Cir. 2005); Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Rios A prisoner “has no constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report,” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and therefore a prisoner’s claim that a correction officer filed a false report, without more, is generally not actionable under § 1983, Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986). “[F]alse accusations contained in a misbehavior report can rise to the level of a constitutional violation . . . where …

“This principle extends as well to false testimony by corrections personnel at prison disciplinary hearings.” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (dismissing due process claims against correction officers for false testimony at an inmate’s disciplinary hearing).

Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

A number of courts in this district have rejected the broad reading of Iqbal that the State Defendants propose, reasoning that “where the claim does not require a showing of discriminatory intent, the personal involvement analysis set forth in Colon should still apply.” Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 506 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (Report & Recommendation) (citing Qasem v. Toro, 737 F.Supp.2d 147, 151-52 (S.D.N.Y.2010)), adopted by 824 F.Supp.2d 488 (S.D.N.Y.2011); D’Olimpio v. Cr…

See Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 401-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding that, although "[i]t would aid reviewing courts if prison disciplinary officers gave their reasons for denying an inmate's request," the Supreme Court does not "require the disciplinary board to explain why it denied the prisoner's request" or "require that those reasons otherwise appear in the administrative record").

See Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

See Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[W]e are left without any justification or reason for [the hearing officer’s] denial of plaintiff's request for the two additional witnesses. . . .

See Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 497 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (“When addressing a 12(b)(6) motion, the court may not consider evidence proffered by the moving party.... ”).

See Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488, 504 (S.D.N.Y.2011), adopted, 824 F.Supp.2d 488 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (“Insofar as defendants argue that plaintiff has no federal constitutional right to administrative review of a prison disciplinary hearing ... they are correct.”); Austin v. Fischer, No. 09 Civ. 4812, 2010 WL 3187642 , at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist.

See Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.Supp.2d 488 , 2011 WL 1532061 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (dismissing claim that defendant had filed false misbehavior report against plaintiff, where plaintiff did not allege that defendants’ conduct was a retaliatory response to plaintiffs exercise of any protected rights); Wright v. Kelly, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1998 WL 912026 , at *1 (W.D.N.Y.

(Id.) Although “a prison inmate has no general constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report,” Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that “[t]he Second Circuit has long held . . . that a prison inmate has no constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report”), there is an exception where the inmate can “show either…

Similarly, although “a prison inmate has no general constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report,” Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Thomas v. Calero, 824 F. Supp. 2d 488, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that “[t]he Second Circuit has long held . . . that a prison inmate has no constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report”), there is an exception where the inmate can “show e…