Not Reported inF.Supp. Page I
Not Reported in F.Supp., 1995 WL. 493709 (E.D.Pa.}
{Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.)
C reasons for the disciplinary motion. Therefore, the
Briefs and Other Related Documents Court finds that, assuming that the thirty (30) day
Sack v. Ca;ninoE.D.Pa.,l995.0nly the Westlaw disciplinary confinement implicated plaintiffs
. citation is currently available. liberty interest, plaintiffs due process rights were
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. not violated. Wolf v. McDonnell, 94 S.Ct. 2963,
Matthew A. SACK, Plaintiff, 2974-75 (I974),
v.
Mary CANINO, etal., Defendants. 3. Alternatively, the Court fmds that the penalty of
No. C}V. A. 95-1412. thirty (30) days disciplinary confinement imposed
by the prison authorities does not present "the type
Aug. 21, 1995, of atypical, significant deprivation [in the context of
ROBRENO. prison life] in which a state might conceivably
create a liberty interest." Sandia 12, Conner, 115
ORDER-MEMORANDUM S.Ct. 2293, 2301 (1995). Therefore, even
assuming that the plaintiff was not afforded the full
*1 AND NOW, this 21st day of August 1995, upon panoply of protections called for by W0@f because
consideration of defendants} motion for summary the thirty (30) day disciplinary confinement in the
judgment (docket no, 8), the plamtiffs response context of prison conditions did not implicate a
(docket no. 9), and the defendants reply (docket no. liberty interest of the plaintiff, such infraction did
10), it is oanaasn that use pisses is oasiursn. net violate the plaintiffs nghts under the Due
FN1 Because the Coun has granted defeptzlsnts Preeess Clause.FN3
surnmary judgment motion, the plaintiffs pending
motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 4) is AND IT IS SO ORDERED
DENIED AS MOOT.FN2 The Court relies upon
the following reasoning: _ _ _ _
FN l. Surnmary judgment is appropriate if "
z. Pismesr eepissas that seeing erases cssiss there ie H9 seheihe teeee ee teeey etetetiel
refused to consider his explanation that he struck 11*Et md 111E 1119**1113 PZIEY 15 E111·`1t1Ed te
his cell mate three to four times in self-defense, Judgment B5 3. matter of law."
Accepting for purposes of this motion plaintiffs FEdjR-CW-P- 56iE}· WEEE mlmg EH E
version of the facts, the Court finds that plaintiff m911E11_1`E1` $11m11141"Y J11de'»mE1"19 *11E CEM
had no constitutional right to assert a claim of must “E“’ 111E E"1dE“EE 111 1-1*E 115111 mES1
self-defense within the context of a prison fE'*’E1Eb1E 19 111E “E“‘mE`*"E·“1· MEEESEEE
disciplinary iissnpg. Rowe v. psa-aye, 17 ree Elee- ieee-e Ce- V- Zenith Keefe Cece-,
1047, 1052-53 (rss cp.199-4) (pnsppers de not 475 US- 574, 587 (19861- The Deen
have a fiindarnental right to defend charges of must E·EEEP1? 1111E 11°1'1‘1`1"1EV*111t`S VEY$1E11 ef
misconduct in prison disciplinary proceedings on *11E feete ES 1`mE» 1111*1 1`ESE1"E EE“111E1S 111
the basis that they acted in self-defense). the 11¤11‘¤19V4¤E$ {-4V'¤T· Big APPIE BMW
Inc. v. BMW of N Am., Inc., 974 F.2d
2. Plaintiff was given advanced notice of the 1358» 1363 (Bd (:11-1992)- EEN dEâ€iE"1»
disciplinary charges and was afforded a hearing at 507 U-S; 9l2s 113 S-CL 1262 (1993}
which time he presented witnesses. Moreover, The eeertns peer beers the initial htetlen
plaintiff received a written explanation by the fact ef Pomtmg 0141 HIE 417591199 ef gclmme
finder of the evidence she relied upon and the 1EE‘·1EE ef m41E11*11 fEE1» SEE CEIEMX C0'}? `*’·
© 2006 Thomsonfwest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt, Works.
http :/{web2.westlawconifpiintfprintstream . aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=%7b6DEC8 106- 1697-. .. l lf26i 2006
Case 1 :05-cv—OO464-SLR Document 99-9 Filed 06/O3/2008 Page 2 of 2 Pass 3 stir
Not Reported in .l*`.Supp. Péigii 2
l‘\OH—lTt0\»‘ilr1t must corrie `.l't)t`Wd.l`t1 wrrrr mers ur-.t or rr r..,......c ,,..-. ,....- ...... _
showing that a genuine issue exists. See case required little or no investigation and
Arrr2‘er·s·orr ti. l.rfrer··r{t= r',obt`J_1-·. incr., 4T? U.-S. discovery. The legal issues are
242,255(l98(r). straight-forwarcl, and no expert testimony
was necessary. Finally, since the Court
I-N2. The Court has hroarl discretion to accepted all of plaintil·`l`s allegations as true
determine whether appointment of counsel for the purposes ofthe motion, the ease did
is warranted, althouglr it must provide not tum on credibility determinations.
reasons for its decision. Sara: Trrhrori 1*.
Grrree, 6 1·`.Q%d l=t?, ISTES (Bd Crr.l993), FN3. 'l`he Court has considered all other
cerrr derir`r¤rt', H4 5.Ct. l3Uo (N94}. As a claims advanced by plaintiff and considers
threshold rnatter, the Court must corrsrder them to have no merit. Also, because the
the merits of plaintil`l`s claim, and satisfy Court has decided the motion on the basis
itself that the pleadings state a prima tacie set forth above. it has not reached the
case and are not frivolous or malicious. det`cndants` additional arguments including
€.crr..'C··r’rrre.s rrr..<¥prc;¢...h.l-Q 't
non-exhaustive list ot` factors in Not Reported in l*.Supp., t995 WL 49S?t)9
determining whether to appoint counselt (E.D.Pa.)
. (I) the plaintiffs ability to present his or
her case [ie., education, literacy, and prior Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top}
litigation experience}, and the corrrplexity
of the particular legal issues; (2) the ·2;Ei5c,vOl4l2(Docl·cct) (Mar. 10,1995}
degree to which factual int·esr.i;;atiori will
be required and the plriintitt`s ability to END OF D()(I`LiMENT
pursue such investigation; (3) il` the
plaiirtiff is a prisoner, the extent to which
he or she may lace problems pursuing his
or her claim {ie., whether conditions of
coritinement make him or her unable to use
a typewriter; pliotocopier, telephone, or
computer`); {ft) whether the elainr is likely
to require extensive discovery and
compliance with cornpiex discovery rules;
[5} whether the case is likely to turn on
credibility deterrnirtations: anal (6]
whether the case will require testimony i
from expert witnesses. See `i"ur‘rr·orr i-·.
Grace, 0 I·`.3d at l56·5T. ln the present
case, the Court tinds that the plrriirtiffs
claim is not frivolous or malicious,
however, it will nerertlreless deny
appointment of counsel. l’la.intii°t`s
pleadings rlemorrsttatc that he is literate,
ti? ZUI}6 Tlrornsonf\\’est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http:.-·’.·"wcb2rwestlaw.conii`prir1tr'prirrtstreainaspit?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=‘Va‘7b6D.E(T8106-l697-... ll.f26f`2OG6
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms