A New York court has upheld the disciplinary actions taken against D'uone Morrison, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled that Morrison violated several prison rules, including making unauthorized phone calls and possessing contraband. This ruling affects Morrison's privileges and highlights the strict enforcement of prison regulations.

The case, known as Matter of Morrison v. Wolcott (CV-24-0844), was decided on July 16, 2026. Morrison had appealed a lower court's decision that dismissed his application to review three disciplinary determinations made against him. These rulings were significant as they resulted in the loss of privileges and raised questions about the rights of inmates during disciplinary hearings.

Background

D'uone Morrison is currently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, where he faced multiple disciplinary charges. The first charge stemmed from a 20-minute phone call he made without approval, during which he ignored several orders from prison staff to hang up and return to his cell. This led to charges of refusing a direct order, employee interference, and a violation of the prison's telephone program.

The second charge involved Morrison sending a business plan for an adult magazine along with a written complaint to prison officials, which was deemed a violation of facility correspondence rules. After being removed from a disciplinary hearing due to disruptive behavior, he was found guilty of this charge as well. Lastly, he faced a third charge after being caught using a tablet to send messages during a period when he had lost his tablet privileges.

The disciplinary actions were upheld after Morrison appealed the decisions through administrative channels. Following this, he initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking to challenge the findings against him. The case eventually reached the Appellate Division, where the judges reviewed the lower court's dismissal of his petition.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, McShan, Mackey, and Ryba, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court found that Morrison's claims regarding the first misbehavior report were without merit. The judges noted that Morrison was required to obey directives from prison staff, regardless of his beliefs about their validity. The court stated, "Petitioner was 'required to promptly obey directives without argument' even if he believed them to be unwarranted."

Regarding the second misbehavior report, the court ruled that Morrison did not qualify for an employee assistant during the hearing. His request was denied because he failed to explain what specific assistance he needed. The judges concluded that the Hearing Officer acted within their discretion when removing Morrison from the hearing due to his disruptive behavior.

For the third misbehavior report, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Morrison's request for an employee assistant. The judges noted that the evidence presented, including testimony from a correction officer, supported the findings against Morrison. They stated that the Hearing Officer was justified in denying requests for redundant evidence and that there was no indication of bias in the hearings.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the authority of prison officials to enforce disciplinary rules and the importance of compliance among inmates. It highlights the legal framework surrounding inmate rights during disciplinary hearings and the limitations that exist. The court's affirmation of the disciplinary actions taken against Morrison serves as a reminder that inmates must adhere to established rules, and failure to do so can result in serious consequences.

The decision may also impact how similar cases are handled in the future, as it underscores the courts' support for prison administrators in maintaining order and discipline within correctional facilities. Inmates and their advocates may need to reconsider their strategies when challenging disciplinary actions, as the court's ruling suggests a strong deference to the judgments made by prison officials.

What's Next

Morrison may have the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court, although details about the likelihood of such an appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that directly address the same issues raised in this appeal.