While incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, Plaintiff-Appellant Jarvis Elder was accused of forging inmate account disbursement forms to steal funds from another inmate’s account. After a disciplinary hearing, a prison official found him guilty of the charged offense and sentenced him to serve six months in Attica’s special housing unit (“SHU”). Elder successfully challenged the prison’s finding in an Article 78 proceeding in New York State court on grounds (among others) that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and that he did not receive meaningful assistance in defending against the charges. This led to annulment of the determination and expungement of his disciplinary record of theft. Elder v. Fischer, 115 A.D. 3d 1177 (4th Dep’t 2014). Elder then sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.) dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice at the pleading stage and then awarded summary judgment to Defendants on Elder’s due process claims, concluding that Elder received all the process he was due. Elder now appeals. We conclude that Elder received adequate notice as to the charges against him. Elder’s disciplinary conviction was not sufficiently supported by the evidence, however. The disciplinary proceedings were tainted by procedural lapses that violated Elder’s due process rights. In particular, among other due process concerns, Defendant prison officers failed to consult readily available prison records to identify the officers with relevant information, limiting his ability to defend against the charges. In addition, we decide that the district court exceeded the permissible bounds of its discretion in dismissing Elder’s Eighth Amendment claim without providing him a meaningful opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. SUSAN CARNEY, C.J. In 2012, while incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility in upstate New York, Plaintiff-Appellant Jarvis Elder was accused of forging inmate account disbursement forms to steal funds from another inmate’s account. After a disciplinary hearing, a prison official found Elder guilty of the related charges and sentenced him to serve six months in Attica’s punitive special housing unit (“SHU”), confined to a cell with one other person for twenty-three hours a day. Elder successfully challenged the disciplinary decision in state court Article 78 proceedings, obtaining an annulment of the prison’s disciplinary determination and expungement of the record of his disciplinary infraction. Elder v. Fischer, 115 A.D. 3d 1177 (4th Dep’t 2014). By the time that decision issued, however, Elder had already served his full six-month sentence in the SHU. Elder then brought claims against state officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.). Seeking damages and attorneys’ fees for Eighth Amendment and due process violations, Elder sued four Attica employees (the “Attica Defendants”) — John McCarthy, a corrections sergeant; Trevor MacIntyre, a corrections officer; Ken Kling, a vocational supervisor and the hearing officer on Elder’s case; Mark Bradt, the Superintendent — and Albert Prack, the Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Programs in the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) (the “State Defendant”; together with the Attica Defendants, “Defendants”). The district court dismissed Elder’s Eighth Amendment claim at the pleading stage without allowing Elder (who was then proceeding pro se) an opportunity to seek leave to amend. The court later granted summary judgment to Defendants on Elder’s due process claims, concluding that prison officials had given Elder all the process he was constitutionally due. Elder now appeals the district court’s final judgment. Elder urges that the record on summary judgment establishes that prison officials wrongly deprived him of his right to due process by denying him the ability to call witnesses, to receive adequate assistance in preparing his defense, to receive fair notice of the charges, and to be disciplined only upon a showing of “some reliable evidence” of guilt, see Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 81 (2d Cir. 2004). He contends that the district court erred in ruling otherwise. As to his Eighth Amendment claim that he suffered cruel and unusual punishment, Elder submits that he was entitled to an opportunity to cure the defects that the district court identified in his complaint — and that he could cure them. On de novo review of both the summary judgment and motion to dismiss decisions, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Elder’s due process claim that rested on a theory of inadequate notice. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment as to this claim. We sustain, however, Elder’s due process claims pertaining to the sufficiency of evidence and access to witnesses, and therefore REVERSE the summary judgment awarded by the district court to Defendants on this count and REMAND with directions that summary judgment be entered in Elder’s favor. As to his due process claim arising from the adequacy of the assistance he received, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND the cause for trial. And finally, as to Elder’s Eighth Amendment claim, we also VACATE the judgment entered in Defendants’ favor on their motion to dismiss and REMAND the cause with instructions that Elder be allowed to file an amended complaint and that further proceedings be conducted consistent with this Opinion. BACKGROUND I. Factual background The following account is drawn from the record before the district court when it adjudicated defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The facts as described here are not disputed by the parties except as otherwise noted. We look only to Elder’s complaint, however, when reviewing the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Elder’s Eighth Amendment claim. See infra, Part VI. A. The fire, the investigation, and the misbehavior report Jarvis Elder was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility in 2009, after his New York conviction for burglary. On September 1, 2012, while he was out of his cell for his afternoon meal, a fire was set in his cell, destroying many of his personal effects. Prison officials undertook to investigate the cause of the fire, placing Elder on “keep lock” (that is, confined in another cell and not permitted to travel outside his cell without physical restraints, see Murray v. McGinnis, 63 F. App’x 562, 563 (2d Cir. 2003)) in the meantime. On September 4, Corrections Sergeant John McCarthy learned (from whom is not clear) that Elder’s cell had been set aflame and received “reliable confidential information” (in his later words) that another inmate, Reginald Lawrence, was involved in “possible drug activity as well as the arson of Inmate Elder’s cell.” App’x 297. McCarthy then searched Lawrence’s cell. There, he found a list of addresses, a list of phone numbers, and an inmate account disbursement form that had been completed in Elder’s name. McCarthy then turned to interviewing Elder, who claimed ownership of the three items that turned up in Lawrence’s cell. Elder also told McCarthy that he (Elder) had filled out the disbursement form and had done so in connection with a withdrawal from his own account. On September 10, McCarthy filed his investigation report. It chronicled the September 4 start of his investigative effort — not with regard to the arson, but with regard to the source of possibly forged disbursement forms, which the prison had relied on to pay out $630 in withdrawals from Lawrence’s account. To execute a withdrawal from an inmate account, the inmate who holds the account submits a completed, signed disbursement form to a designated officer. The officer then verifies the inmate’s name and identification number and countersigns the form to authorize the disbursement, which in this case was generally made by check made payable to the inmate or the inmate’s payee. McCarthy concluded that the handwriting that appeared on the disbursement form found in Lawrence’s cell and claimed by Elder as his own matched that appearing on the seven suspect disbursement forms completed in Lawrence’s name (the latter forms, the “Lawrence forms” or the “Lawrence disbursement forms”). McCarthy wrote that he believed Elder had forged the Lawrence forms, stating that “the handwriting on Inmate Elder’s personal 2706 form matches all of the 2706 forms with Inmate Lawrence’s name and number on it…therefore, it is my belief that Inmate Elder forged all the 2706 forms….” App’x 298. Elder received a copy of McCarthy’s report on September 11. He remained in keep lock until September 14, when his disciplinary hearing began. So confined, Elder was unable to investigate the charges on his own behalf. In these circumstances, DOCCS regulations entitled Elder to receive a prison officer’s assistance in investigating the charge and preparing his defense to the disciplinary proceedings. See 7 N.Y.C.R.R. 251-4.1(a)(4). These regulations provide that the assistant’s role is “to speak with the inmate charged, to explain the charges to the inmate, interview witnesses and to report the results of his efforts to the inmate.” Id. 251-4.2. An inmate may request that an assistant “obtain[] documentary evidence or written statements which may be necessary.” Id. Elder identified three possible assistants from a list provided him. He was assigned Defendant Trevor MacIntyre. On September 13, MacIntyre visited Elder in his keep lock cell to discuss what assistance Elder needed. They agree that, in that conversation, Elder denied the forgery and theft charges brought against him, but otherwise, their accounts differ. According to Elder, he asked McIntyre to collect documents, interview certain witnesses, and arrange for those witnesses to be present at his disciplinary hearing. He further requested that MacIntyre provide him copies of the Lawrence disbursement forms at issue, as well as of “Chapter V,” as the DOCCS regulations governing disciplinary proceedings are known. Elder also avers that he asked MacIntyre to conduct several interviews: first, of McCarthy, the author of the investigative report; second, of prisonmate Reginald Lawrence; third, of a handwriting expert; and fourth, of the officers who countersigned the Lawrence disbursement forms — the forms that Elder was accused of forging. On a prison “Assistant Form” dated September 13 (the day he interviewed Elder), however, MacIntyre recorded only that Elder requested that Lawrence be interviewed; that McCarthy be present at the hearing; a handwriting specialist; the “directive on forgery”; and that the “officers who signed the disbursement forms be present at the hearing.” App’x 43. In particular, MacIntyre maintains that Elder did not request copies of the Lawrence disbursement forms themselves or of Chapter V. He asserts further that, although Elder asked that the officers who countersigned the forms be made available for questioning at the hearing, Elder did not ask MacIntyre to interview them in advance. Elder countersigned the assistant form that McIntyre prepared, apparently when their meeting ended, at approximately 1 pm on September 13. Id. After meeting with Elder, MacIntyre interviewed Lawrence. MacIntyre later reported to Elder that Lawrence refused to testify, and that refusal, too, is noted on the Assistant Form. Next, according to MacIntyre, he searched for a “directive on forgery” and determined that one did not exist, recording that information on the Assistant Form. App’x 300. MacIntyre also said that he relayed Elder’s requests for witnesses, including his specific request that the officers who countersigned the Lawrence disbursement forms appear at his hearing. Elder disputes MacIntyre’s account: he testified during his deposition that MacIntyre told him that he would have to wait until the hearing to see the documents he had requested and that Elder would have to wait until the hearing to receive further assistance. B. The disciplinary hearing and disposition The disciplinary hearing began on September 14, with Defendant Ken Kling, a vocational supervisor, presiding. Kling opened the hearing by reviewing the list of witnesses Elder had requested appear, including Lawrence and the still-unidentified officers who signed the Lawrence disbursement forms. Kling explained that he could not compel Lawrence to testify; that McCarthy was not available to attend the hearing that day; and that Kling needed more information to enable him to identify the countersigning officer witnesses. Kling then read McCarthy’s report into the record. Elder pleaded not guilty to the charges brought: forgery and theft. (MacIntyre, Elder’s assistant, apparently did not attend the hearing.) The hearing transcript reflects that Kling showed the Lawrence disbursement forms in some way, stating, “that is the written evidence that I am showing you.” App’x 318. Elder disputes that he was able to meaningfully review this evidence: he later testified that Kling “flipp[ed] through” the forms and displayed them to him from where Kling was seated, but that Kling did not “plac[e] them in [his] hand and let [him] look at [them].” App’x 266. Elder explained to Kling that identifying the officers who had signed the disbursement forms was crucial to his defense because “they have to check ID,” implying that they should be able to identify who signed or submitted the Lawrence forms and could potentially exonerate Elder. App’x 318. Kling responded that he understood and that he would “see what [he could] do,” App’x 319, but that he could not read the officers’ scrawled signatures. Elder complained that he had never received copies of the written evidence and thus lacked specific information about the accusations against him, including any relevant “dates and times.” Id. Kling then adjourned the hearing. The hearing reconvened a week later, on September 21. Kling reviewed the charges and Elder’s “not guilty” plea with him before inviting Elder to make a statement. App’x 319. Elder accepted the invitation. He denied stealing anything from Lawrence and denied forging the disbursement forms. He argued that he could not have forged the forms because “it is a policy…[to] check inmates['] name and ID number prior to…taking disbursement forms.” App’x 320. Elder explained that he and Lawrence knew each other, and that he had previously “helped [Lawrence] out” with matters concerning money and artwork or art supplies. App’x 319. Elder stated that he was concerned that Lawrence had somehow ended up with Elder’s address and phone lists and suggested that Lawrence might have framed him and “pull[ed] a scam to get money.” App’x 320. Kling called McCarthy as a witness. He first asked McCarthy “what [led him] to believe that Inmate Elder was the person who committed [the] forgery.” App’x 321. McCarthy responded that, when he searched Lawrence’s cell on or about September 4, he found documents bearing Elder’s handwriting and that (in his view) the handwriting on those documents resembled that appearing on the purportedly forged forms. Kling inquired whether McCarthy could identify the officers who had approved and signed the disbursement forms. McCarthy replied that he could not. Kling added that he himself had asked about the identity of the signatory officers “in the block with different officers,” but had no success. App’x 322. After McCarthy testified and Elder had an opportunity to have cross-examination questions put to him, Kling closed the hearing and prepared a brief written disposition, which he read into the record a few minutes later. In the written disposition, Kling stated that he found Elder guilty of both forgery and stealing. He imposed a penalty on Elder of six months’ confinement in the SHU, accompanied by loss of recreation, package receipt, and commissary privileges. He also ordered that Elder pay Lawrence $630 in restitution. Describing the evidence on which he relied, Kling wrote in toto: In this case I relied upon the verbal testimony given by Sgt. McCarthy in addition to the written misbehavior report. The visual evidence of the signature was compelling in the similarities. It would appear to me that some officers may have been lax in verifying I.D. I also felt that no credible defense was given. App’x 329. In an affidavit later submitted in the district court proceedings, Kling expanded on this description, and swore that the hearing record on which he relied included several additional documents: the purportedly forged Lawrence disbursement forms themselves; Elder’s own disbursement form, found in Lawrence’s cell; Elder’s address and phone lists; Elder’s mail receipts; and a check endorsed by Elder. The three Lawrence disbursement forms bore handwritten designations of “Reginald Lawerence [sic],”as payor. All were initialed or countersigned by unidentified corrections officers and all were paid out in the roughly three-week period from July 31 through August 24, 2012. C. Administrative appeals and Article 78 proceeding In accordance with prison protocol, Elder appealed Kling’s decision to Defendant Mark Bradt, Attica’s Superintendent, and separately to Albert Prack, state-wide DOCCS Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Programs. Both Prack and Bradt affirmed Kling’s decision. Elder, acting pro se, then challenged the evidentiary sufficiency of Kling’s decision in an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court. Eventually, the Appellate Division vindicated Elder’s claim, ruling that the prison’s disciplinary decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See Elder, 115 A.D.3d at 1177. The court’s decision rested in part on the observation that the misbehavior report and evidence presented at the hearing included no statement “that [McCarthy] showed [Lawrence] the disbursement forms or that [Lawrence] claimed that it was not his signature on the forms.” Id. at 1178. The court also criticized Kling for his failure, apart from speaking to a few unidentified “officers in the block,” to make meaningful efforts to identify the officers who signed the Lawrence disbursement forms and whom Elder had requested attend the hearing. Id. The court further found that Elder “was denied meaningful employee assistance and was prejudiced by the inadequate assistance he received,” pointing to the absence of evidence that MacIntyre made any efforts “to ascertain the names of the correction officers who signed the disbursement forms” or “to secure their presence at the hearing.” Id. Thus, the court concluded, “it [could not] be said that reasonable efforts were made to locate [Elder's] witnesses.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). On this basis, the court annulled Kling’s decision and ordered that references to the matter be expunged from Elder’s record. Id. at 1177. In 2014, when the Appellate Division’s decision issued, however, Elder had long since completed his six-month sentence in the SHU. II. District court proceedings On May 1, 2014, Elder filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. §1983, naming McCarthy, MacIntyre, Kling, Bradt, and Prack as defendants. Asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the state officials, he sought compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. As relevant to this appeal, the operative complaint alleged that the prison’s disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights in several ways. Elder charged that (1) Sergeant McCarthy filed a false misbehavior report; (2) Officer MacIntyre provided inadequate assistance by failing to interview the witnesses and procure the documents that Elder requested; (3) Sergeant McCarthy and Hearing Officer Kling gave him inadequate notice of the charges against him because the misbehavior report lacked specificity and he did not have an adequate opportunity to review the Lawrence disbursement forms; (4) Hearing Officer Kling failed to provide Elder the documents Elder sought and did not call the officer witnesses he requested; (5) Hearing Officer Kling’s disposition of the charges against Elder was not based on adequate or reliable evidence; and (6) in the administrative appeals process, Superintendent Bradt and Director Prack culpably failed to correct these unconstitutional procedural failures. With respect to his Eighth Amendment claim that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, Elder alleged that, while in the SHU, he was confined in a cell with one other person for twenty-three hours a day, allowed to exercise very little, and that he received “barely any cleaning supplies,” which made “keeping the cell clean difficult and almost impossible.” App’x 30-31,
