Prude v. Meli

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-prison official’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant denied plaintiff due process during his prison hearing to determine merits of disciplinary charges arising out of his receipt of $10,000 check that plaintiff claimed was gift. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant, who had actually seized said check and conducted investigation that led to issuance of disciplinary charges based on defendant’s claim that check was actually contraband, sat next to hearing officer, controlled every step of hearing and directed actions of hearing officer to ensure that plaintiff would be found guilty of charges and would not get his $10,000 back. As such, plaintiff’s impartial decision-maker claim could not be resolved at summary judgment stage, where, according to plaintiff, defendant, as officer substantially involved in investigation of charges, cannot decide outcome of prison hearing. Moreover, plaintiff presented evidence that defendant told him prior to start of hearing that plaintiff’s $10,000 would not be returned to him regardless of outcome of hearing. Fact that plaintiff failed to produce direct evidence of any communication between defendant and hearing officer did not require different result. Also, Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to add hearing officer as defendant in instant action.