The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN
SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.
Pro se plaintiff, Charles Uzzell, brings this action for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion, is denied, and defendants' motion is granted.
At times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an inmate of the Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven"), Stormville, New York. See Affidavit of Marilyn Trautfield ("Traut. Aff.") at P 2. On July 7, 1990, plaintiff was placed in keeplock pending a disciplinary hearing for allegedly violating Rule 113.13, "Inmate Shall Not Be Under the Influence of Intoxicants" and Rule 106.10, "Refusing Direct Order." Traut. Aff. at P 3 and Plaintiff's Complaint ("Compl.") at PP 5, 7, 8. The incident giving rise to these charges occurred on July 7, 1990 at approximately 8:15 p.m. Traut. Aff. at P 4.
On July 8, 1990, at 8:28 p.m., plaintiff was served with a copy of an Inmate Misbehavior Report.
Compl. at P 9. On July 9, 1990 at 8:44 a.m., approximately twelve (12) hours after the misbehavior report was served upon plaintiff, Correctional Captain W.L. Wright, commenced a Tier III Disciplinary Hearing. Compl. at P 10, Traut. Aff. at P 5.
At the hearing, plaintiff pled "not guilty" to the charge of violating Rule 113.13 and pled "guilty with an explanation" to the charge of violating Rule 106.10.
Traut. Aff. at P 6. The hearing was adjourned until July 10, 1990. Traut. Aff. at P 9. Plaintiff was found guilty of both charges and was sentenced to forty-five (45) days in keeplock from July 10, 1990 to August 23, 1990, with credit for one day served.
Traut. Aff. at P 10.
On July 30, 1990, Artuz directed all areas to dismiss and expunge the hearing from all records due to a procedural error.
Compl. at P 23 and Traut. Aff. at Ex G. All records of this hearing have been expunged from Green Haven's records. Traut. Aff. at P 12. Plaintiff served twenty-three days of the forty-five day sentence before he was released from keeplock. Compl. at P 24 and Traut. Aff. at P 13.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Summary judgment may be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Mays v. Mahoney, 23 F.3d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1994); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). To grant a motion for summary judgment the Court must determine that a reasonable finder of fact could not find in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986).
The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144, 156, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142, 90 S. Ct. 1598 (1970). Once the moving party succeeds in meeting its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forth with evidence of specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986).
A. Twenty-Four Hours Notice of the ...