Bailey v. Corbett
A prisoner has no constitutional right to housing when released on probation. After his release on probation, Mark Bailey brought this action against the defendants, including Esther Torres, warden of the correctional facility from which Bailey was released, and DeShawn Billings, Bailey's probation officer. Bailey alleged that Torres retaliated against him for naming her in a lawsuit, including by referring him late to probation, denying him gate money and denying him identification documents. He alleged that Billings placed him in a homeless shelter, refused to allow him to serve his probation in Virginia and sought his arrest for violating probation by not obtaining employment or school placement. Torres and Billings moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion. For the claims against Torres, the plaintiff was required and failed to present evidence demonstrating a causal connection between the alleged retaliatory actions and naming Torres in his lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged no such facts in his amended complaint. He provided no evidence in response to the summary judgment motion to support a finding by a reasonable juror of such a causal connection. Absent any evidence, Bailey's retaliation claim failed. For the claims against Billings, Bailey alleged that Billings placed him in a homeless shelter in a dormitory setting, which exacerbated his mental health symptoms and where a bedbug infestation caused him to experience sleep deprivation. Billings stated that he was not connected with or responsible for the shelter's conditions. Bailey provided no contrary evidence. There was no factual basis for a jury to find Billings liable for the shelter's conditions. Bailey's allegation that Billings did not address his complaint for over a month lacked a factual basis. Bailey was referred to transitional housing prior to his release on probation but no bed was available for him until six days after his release. Even if true, Bailey had no constitutional right to housing when released on probation. Thus, his claim that the housing offered did not meet his specifications failed. Bailey's remaining claims also lacked a factual basis. Further, Bailey had no constitutionally protected right to serve his probationary period in another state.