Vidal v. Venettozzi

── Vidal v. Venettozzi ── Case No.: 24-2548 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General 24-2548-pr Vidal v. Venettozzi In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2025 (Argued: September 22, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2026) Docket No. 24-2548 JOSEPH VIDAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, –v.– DONALD E. VENETTOZZI, Director of Special Housing Unit, Inmate Disciplinary Program, ERIC GUTWEIN, Commissioner Hearing Officer, WAYNE CARROLL, Recreation Supervisor, Disciplinary Employee Assistant, BRYAN P. ANSPACH, Disciplinary Office Assistant, in their Personal and Individual Capacities, Defendants-Appellees. * Before: ROBINSON and MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. † * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as reflected above. † Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan was originally a member of the panel but was unable to participate in consideration of this matter. Pursuant to this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, the appeal was heard and decided by the remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement. See 2d Cir. IOP E(b).  Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Vidal appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Román, J.) granting summary judgment to several New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) officials on his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim. Following a prison disciplinary hearing, Vidal was sentenced to 270 days—approximately nine months—of confinement in the special housing unit (“SHU”); he ultimately served at least 180 days. Vidal contends that he was denied basic procedural protections at his disciplinary hearing, including the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense. The district court concluded that Vidal’s sentence and SHU confinement did not implicate a protected liberty interest under the governing standard derived from Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), and this Court’s subsequent precedents, and therefore that no due process protections were required. We disagree. Vidal’s term of disciplinary segregation—whether we focus on the 270 days imposed, the 180 days served, or any other potentially applicable length of confinement—constitutes an atypical and significant hardship based on duration alone and thus implicates a liberty interest that triggers due process protections. We therefore VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AMIT JAIN (Devi M. Rao, Wynne Muscatine Graham, Nethra K. Raman, on the brief), MacArthur Justice Center, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellant. ANDREA W. TRENTO, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Judith N. Vale, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees. Matthew Marchiori, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C., Patience M. Tyne, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae 2  Former Corrections Officials, in Support of Plaintiff- Appellant. ROBINSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Vidal appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Román, J.) granting s