Jeffrey M. DeAngelis v. Warden (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION:  DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO P.B. 23–29

I. Procedural History

The petitioner, Jeffrey M. DeAngelis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 19, 2011.   The petition asserts that he is currently serving four (4) concurrent sentences, each sentence being an identical 13 years followed by 7 years of special parole, and that he entered upon that incarceration via guilty plea on October 20, 2009 before Hon. Patrick Clifford in the Middletown Superior Court.   On July 11, 2011, an amended petition was filed with the court.   The amended petition claims that subsequent to a July 2010 incident wherein the petitioner was caught with certain contraband in his cell that:  1. petitioner was wrongfully classified as a “gang member” (Amended Petition, ¶ 7a, 7b);  and 2. that there were deficiencies or violations in the classification hearing process that petitioner alleges denied him “due process” (Amended Petition, ¶ 7d, e and f).  The petition seeks as relief that the court “Order prison officials to return [petitioner] to general inmate population.”

II. Law

“To obtain relief through a habeas petition, the petitioner must plead facts that, if proven, establish that the petitioner is entitled to relief.”   Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 129, 136–37 (2010).  “When a petition fails to state a valid habeas claim, it is proper for the habeas court to dismiss the petition.”  Id. at 140.   In the present case, the petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by the habeas court.  Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn.App. 138, 141 (2008), cert. den'd, 290 Conn. 905 (2009) (upholding dismissal of habeas complaint asserting improper security classification due to alleged due process violations and insufficiency of evidence during disciplinary hearing.)  “[T]he petitioner [is] not entitled to habeas relief for an alleged due process violation at his disciplinary hearing, because the adverse consequences ․ did not result in the deprivation of a liberty interest.”  “[An inmates] classification as a security risk group member does not implicate a liberty interest.   Prison classification and eligibility for various rehabilitation programs, wherein prison officials have full discretion to control those conditions of confinement, do not create a statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process.   Accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to due process prior to being classified as a security risk group member.”  (Internal citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Id. at 142.

IV. Conclusion

Based on above, the petition is DISMISSED.

Hon. John M. Newson

Newson, John M.,