Abdul Mukhtaar v. Warden (2013)

HABEAS HEARING

(Excerpt)

THE COURT:  Okay. All right.   Well, sir, based on what I've heard, I'm going tell you a couple of things.   One, the result of your disciplinary hearing which was the fact that the Department of Corrections increased or modified your security classification level which may have led to some segregation and the reduction in some of your other privileges such as visits, ability to get a job, to go to school, to have certain mail, those things are totally one hundred percent within the absolute discretion of the Department of Corrections.   And so, regardless of how they got to that point, this court has no authority as a—sitting as a Habeas Court, to interfere in the security classifications or the security decisions of the Department of Corrections.   And that deals with how and when they allow visits, to what extent they allow individuals to attend schooling and/or to obtain jobs, the mail, and their review and security of the mail, and within reasonable periods of time, their security level classification and their placing people in administrative segregation.   That comes under the case of Coleman v. Commissioner and/or Joyce v. Commissioner.   Joyce is at 129 Conn.App. 37, that's a 2011 case.   Coleman is at 111 Conn.App. 138 and that's a 2008 case.

And so your claims—and with regards to the hearing itself from what the Court heard is not withstanding any allegations, what you're really complaining about is you don't like the result and you don't agree with the evidence they claim they had against you, but the Department of Corrections, again, it's not a court of criminal law where they must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, it's an administrative hearing in the Department of Corrections where frankly they're allowed to rely on any sort of evidence they feel is reasonably prudent.   It's a very low standard and again, you were given a hearing.   You may not like the results but again, based on what you're telling me, you failed to state a claim that you were entitled to any more process than what you got in your hearing.

So, for either of those reasons, either that the claim is—and also I would say this court has no authority to order or even consider ordering the Department of Corrections to transfer an individual to any particular or specific facility.

And so either for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and/or because there's no liberty interest in the alleged offenses claimed, the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed pursuant to Practice Book 23–29 and that order is entered.

The record will reflect the clerk will provide Mr. Mukhtaar with notice of his rights to appeal.   So that will be done.

MR. MUKHTAAR:  May I please have a copy of this transcript as well, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  You can file a written request for a transcript just like everybody else if you desire a copy, sir, and that will be acted on in due course.   The record will reflect the Marshal is presenting the petitioner with a notice of his right to appeal.   And sir you are advised that all statutory and/or Practice Book timeframes apply so if you are going to file a notice to appeal, you must comply with statutory and Practice Book guidelines.

MR. MUKHTAAR:  Your Honor—

THE COURT:  We'll stamp—yes, sir.

MR. MUKHTAAR:  Excuse me, the only thing I'm asking is pursuant to the administrative directive as you were saying about which claim can be released—reached, pursuant to the administrative directive by the Department of Corrections, once a ticket has been cleared, as my ticket has been cleared, and I'm placed back in the general population, that makes me eligible for a job, or for education, and they have never done that—

THE COURT:  Being eligible and then giving you a job are two different things.

MR. MUKHTAAR:  Exactly.

THE COURT:  You may be eligible.   They are not mandated to give you anything.   That is one hundred percent within their discretion.   So again—

MR. MUKHTAAR:  I understand that, but I'm just saying—

THE COURT:—we're  talking about—

MR. MUKHTAAR:—they  haven't even allowed me the eligibility because in eligibility—

THE COURT:  Sir, again, I've made my actions based on what you say.   It's completely within their discretion.   So, you have the right to appeal it.   If the Appellate Court or somebody thinks I'm wrong, you and I will be seeing each other again.   But again, you may be eligible.   Either way they're not required to give you a job, they're not required to give you visits, they're not required to give you education, and they're not required to give you mail.   They are allowed to impose their security features as they see fit and with limited or almost no exceptions, the Habeas Court has no standing to interfere with that.

Again, you have the absolute right to appeal my decision.   You've been given your appellate paperwork and if they feel you've stated a claim which should be heard, they will send it back and I will be more than happy to hear it.   But the law as I understand it, your claims fail to state issues upon which I can grant the relief that you've requested.

MR. MUKHTAAR:  Okay.

THE COURT:  Good luck, sir.   And we'll stand—I will order a transcript of my comments for the file for my signature which will stand in lieu of a memorandum of decision.   We stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.   Good luck, sir.

(End of proceeding)

Honorable John Newson, Judge

Newson, John M., J.