Corners v. Saccocia
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
January 17, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1519
KAVIN CORNERS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PAUL SACCOCIA, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Kavin Corners on brief pro se. _____________
David J. Gentile on brief for appellees. ________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment substantially for __________
the reasons recited in the magistrate-judge's comprehensive
report (as modified in part by the district court), adding
only the following observations.
Plaintiff insists that the lower court erred in invoking
the doctrine of qualified immunity. In order to overcome
such a defense, plaintiff bore the burden of demonstrating
that the law regarding a prison disciplinary board's reliance
on information from a confidential informant was "clearly
established" by May 1991. See, e.g., Horta v. Sullivan, 4 ___ ____ _____ ________
F.3d 2, 13 (1st Cir. 1993). Yet the sole law to which
plaintiff has referred in this regard is that contained in
the so-called "Morris Rules"--a set of procedures governing
prison administration first adopted in 1972 as part of a
consent decree and later promulgated as state law. See, ___
e.g., Rodi v. Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22, 23, 26-27 (1st Cir. ____ ____ __________
1991).1
While the Morris Rules were designed to implement
various constitutional protections, not every violation of
those rules results in a claim of constitutional dimension.
See, e.g., Morris v. Travisono, 509 F.2d 1358, 1362 (1st Cir. ___ ____ ______ _________
1975) (noting that Morris Rules embody both "what is ...
constitutionally necessary and what is not"); Nicholson v. _________
____________________
1. The current version of the rules is reproduced in Morris ______
v. Travisono, 499 F. Supp. 149, 161-74 (D.R.I. 1980). _________
Moran, 835 F. Supp. 692, 697 n.18 (D.R.I. 1993); see also _____ _________
DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1991) ("Not __________ _____
every breach of [the Morris Rules] will give rise to an
Eighth Amendment claim."); cf. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. ___ _____ _______
183, 194 (1984) ("Officials sued for constitutional
violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely
because their conduct violates some statutory or
administrative provision.") (footnote omitted).2
Plaintiff's reliance on the Morris Rules provides no guidance
as to what is independently required in this context as a
matter of federal due process. See generally, e.g., Russell _____________ ____ _______
v. Scully, 15 F.3d 219, 223-24 (2d Cir. 1993) (on petition ______
for rehearing); Taylor v. Wallace, 931 F.2d 698, 701-02 (10th ______ _______
Cir. 1991) (reviewing cases); Baker v. Lyles, 904 F.2d 925, _____ _____
931-33 (4th Cir. 1990); Langton v. Berman, 667 F.2d 231, 235 _______ ______
(1st Cir. 1981). Inasmuch as neither side has addressed the
contours of the constitutional right at stake, we shall
likewise decline to do so. See, e.g., Wilson v. Brown, 889 ___ ____ ______ _____
F.2d 1195, 1196 n.3 (1st Cir. 1989) (plaintiff's pro se
____________________
2. In turn, to the extent plaintiff's argument rests on our
holding in Rodi that the Morris Rules "imbue prison inmates ____
with a liberty interest in remaining in the general prison
population," 941 F.2d at 23, it suffices to note that such
opinion was issued after the events in question here. See, ___
e.g., id. at 30-31 (finding such result not to have been ____ ___
clearly established prior thereto); Morgan v. Ellerthorpe, ______ ___________
785 F. Supp. 295, 303 (D.R.I. 1992).
-3-
status "does not make us more inclined to interpret damage
pleas further than their plain language permits").
Plaintiff also challenges the district court's refusal
to order that he be reclassified to minimum security/work
release status.3 His sole argument in this regard is that
the applicable regu
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Corners v. Saccocia, (1st Cir. 1995).
Corners v. Saccocia (Corners v. Saccocia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Joseph Morris v. Anthony Travisono
509 F.2d 1358 (First Circuit, 1975)
William Langton v. Louis Berman
667 F.2d 231 (First Circuit, 1981)
Russell C. Baker v. Howard N. Lyles, Warden Lawrence Carpenter, Security Chief Major Thompson, Acting Security Chief Lt. Elijah Thomas
904 F.2d 925 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
Albert E. Taylor v. James Wallace, David Miller, Dolores Ramsey
931 F.2d 698 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)
Stephen Gerard Rodi v. Donald R. Ventetuolo
941 F.2d 22 (First Circuit, 1991)
Steven M. Desrosiers v. John J. Moran
949 F.2d 15 (First Circuit, 1991)
Whorf (Karl J.) v. Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Massachusetts
966 F.2d 1440 (First Circuit, 1992)
Cugini v. Ventetuolo
781 F. Supp. 107 (D. Rhode Island, 1992)
Morris v. Travisono
499 F. Supp. 149 (D. Rhode Island, 1980)
Morgan v. Ellerthorpe
785 F. Supp. 295 (D. Rhode Island, 1992)
State v. Pari
553 A.2d 135 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1989)
Russell v. Scully
15 F.3d 219 (Second Circuit, 1993)
Nicholson v. Moran
835 F. Supp. 692 (D. Rhode Island, 1993)