United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK P. GERACI, JR. Chief Judge
se Plaintiff Dwight Smalls, an inmate incarcerated at
Auburn Correctional Facility, brings this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action for alleged violations of his constitutional
rights while he was confined at Elmira Correctional Facility.
ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
ECF No. 13. For the reasons that follow, Defendants'
motion is GRANTED.
Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1)
excessive force that injured Plaintiff and led to a false
misbehavior report being filed against him; (2) denial of
medical treatment for his injuries after the assault; (3)
religious discrimination; and (4) due process violations
during a disciplinary hearing.
the Court initially screened Plaintiff's Complaint, it
dismissed his false misbehavior report claim. ECF No. 5. In
lieu of answering the Complaint, Defendants moved to dismiss
the official capacity claims against them and Plaintiff's
retaliation, religious discrimination, and due process
claims. Defendants have not moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
remaining claims, and therefore the Court will not address
complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[w]here a
complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Determining
whether a complaint meets the plausibility standard is
“context-specific” and requires that the court
“draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 679.
argue that Plaintiff's official capacity, retaliation,
and racial discrimination claims should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff concedes the dismissal of these claims (ECF No. 21
at 4), and therefore they are dismissed.
also argue that Plaintiff's due process claim should be
dismissed. They assert that this claim is prohibited by the
rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), which bars a Section 1983 due process claim related
to a disciplinary hearing unless the hearing officer's
determination is subsequently invalidated. The disciplinary
hearing at issue here resulted in the loss of 24 months of
good time credit.
a plaintiff does not seek to restore his good-time credits, a
favorable ruling on his due process claim necessarily implies
the invalidity of the sanctions imposed. See Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997). Thus, an inmate
cannot sue for damages under Section 1983 based on alleged
procedural due process violations during a disciplinary
hearing that led to the revocation of good-time credits.
See id. at 648. The claim is improper until the
prison's decision is overturned through administrative
channels or a state or federal court in a habeas proceeding.
See id.; Peralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98,
103 (2d Cir. 2006).
to the rule in Heck, Plaintiff's due process
claim is not cognizable under Section 1983 unless the hearing
officer's determination is invalidated. Even though
Plaintiff does not challenge the loss of his good time
credit,  the disciplinary proceeding that he