AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Monthly Law Journal Article: Disciplining
Prisoners for Drug Use or Possession--Part 1, 2010 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Disciplining Prisoners for Drug Use or Possession--Part 2, 2010 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Disciplining Prisoners for Drug Use or Possession--Part 3, 2010 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
The highest court in New York overturned a disciplinary
hearing finding a prisoner guilty of violating two disciplinary rules. A
violation of the prisoner’s right to call witnesses occurred at the
administrative hearing because the hearing officer did not make a “meaningful
inquiry” into a requested witness’s claim that he had been intimidated or
coerced into refusing to testify. Cortorreal
v. Annucci, # 519317, 2016 NY Slip Op 06943, 28 N.Y.3d 54. 2016 N.Y. Lexis 3214.
A Kansas inmate was disciplined for violating a prohibition on fighting. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the inmate was not accorded due process as the finding by the hearing officer that he had violated the prohibition was unsupported by the evidence. There was no evidence to disprove self-defense, and state regulations clearly and unambiguously made the absence of self-defense an element of the offense itself. May v. Cline, #110095, 372 P.3d 1242, 2016 Kan. Lexis 310.
An inmate classified as a violent felon was housed in solitary confinement for over a decade based on a finding of gang affiliation. He was found, in a disciplinary proceeding, to have refused nine consecutive meals over a three day period that coincided with a larger hunger strike and work stoppage protesting solitary confinement conditions. He lost 90 days of good time credits for engaging in "behavior which might lead to violence or disorder, or otherwise endangers facility, outside community or another person.” An intermediate California appeals court found insufficient evidence to support the disciplinary ruling. Nothing in the evidence of the delays, cancellation of services, and the reallocation of prison personnel to monitor the hunger strikers indicated that prison operations were thrown into "disorder." In re Gomez, #A142470, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 320.
An inmate was notified the he was facing a disciplinary proceeding based on his possession of heroin that was confiscated by a named officer during a cell search. He stated that this was not the officer who had searched his cell, which had been searched by two different officers, who found nothing. While the named officer's report stated that he found heroin in cell 10-D, the inmate's cell, a photo of the heroin was labeled "Cell 10-6D." He was not permitted to view a video that existed of the search. No witnesses appeared at the hearing, although he requested that the officers that he claimed had actually searched his cell appear. The hearing officer ruled that he should lose 90 days of good time credit. A federal appeals court reversed, noting that the inmate was entitled to present evidence refuting the report that heroin was found in his cell. Given the conflict between the report and the label on the photo, the refusal to allow him to exercise that right was “particularly troubling.” Ellison v. Zatecky, #15-1884, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7035 (7th Cir.).
An Illinois prisoner was sanctioned with the loss of a year of accumulated good time credits as a result of two incidents involving interaction with the same guard. He claimed that he was improperly denied access to recordings of the incident, denied an opportunity to call witnesses in support of his version of the facts, and denied the opportunity to present certain evidence. A state appellate court denied relief without reaching the merits of these claims because the prisoner had failed to follow instructions to tear off the top part of a form requesting witnesses. A federal trial court denied habeas relief, partially on the merits and partially on a procedural ground concerning the form. The federal appeals court upheld the portion of the ruling on the merits, but found that the state court's “novel ruling carried bureaucratic concerns about paperwork to an unreasonable extreme and does not bar federal consideration of the prisoner’s constitutional claim on the merits.” Donelson v. Pfister, #14-3395, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 1384 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated in the course of prison disciplinary proceedings. A correctional officer issued an incident report charging him with “Possession of Anything Unauthorized” for having another inmate's litigation document. The hearing officer modified the charge to “Conduct which Interferes with the Security or Orderly Running of the Institution," found him guilty, and ordered that he lose good time credits. He claimed that it violated due process that he was not informed in advance of the modification of the charges. After the hearing, however, an administrative appeal overturned the determination and restored his good time credits, so any procedural due process error was corrected through the administrative appeal process. Frank v. Schultz, #14-55890, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 21556 (8th Cir.).
At a disciplinary hearing for a misbehavior report, a prisoner pled not guilty and requested that another inmate be called as a witness, asking the hearing officer to contact the witness. When the hearing reconvened, the hearing officer did not state whether the witness had been contacted, but found the prisoner guilty. On a claim that the hearing officer violated his constitutional rights by failing to make reasonable to contact the witness. The trial judge ordered a new disciplinary hearing. The inmate appealed, arguing that an expungement of the discipline was instead the proper remedy. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that the granting of a new hearing was the appropriate remedy for failing to provide written notice of whether the prisoners request to call the witness was denied, and if so, why, as required by state regulations. Texeira v. Fischer, 2015 N.Y. Lexis 3549, 2015 NY Slip Op 07783,
A federal appeals court rejected a prisoner's claim that his procedural due process rights were violated in connection with a disciplinary hearing conducted without his presence. The court found that the prisoner could implicitly waive the right to attend such a hearing by refusing to attend it after receiving notice and being afforded an opportunity to attend. Smith v. Fischer, #14-3857, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17488 (2nd Cir.).
A cell phone was found during a random search at a prison, and the phone's history showed that a prisoner's son had called that number the day before. The prisoner was convicted on disciplinary charges and lost good time credits as well as having other sanctions imposed. A federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner had adequately exhausted his available administrative remedies, allowing him to sue, but that the fact that he was convicted of conduct that disrupts or interferes with the orderly running of the institution rather than possession of the cell phone, the charge that he was notified would be pursued at the hearing, did not violate his due process rights. Both charges could be based on the same conduct--having and using the cell phone. Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, #13-14384, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7158, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1158 (11th Cir.).
When a prisoner performed a one-day work assignment of construction work in the crawl space of a parole office near the prison, he was charged with and then punished following a disciplinary hearing for attempting to traffic tobacco. His punishment included the loss of 60 days of good time credit, and demotion in his credit class, making it more difficult for him to earn good time credits. He was also assigned to 20 extra hours of work and denied commissary privileges for 25 days. The evidence in the hearing consisted of a guard's statement that various items of tobacco were found in the crawl space the prisoner had been assigned to work in. A federal appeals court reversed a finding that the evidence, while "scanty," was sufficient to establish constructive possession of tobacco. The appeals court ruled that the prisoner had been convicted without evidence of guilt, violating his right to due process of law. Austin v. Pazera, #14-2574, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 2608 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he had been granted parole but that it was rescinded because he was facing pending disciplinary charges and had been placed in a restrictive housing unit as a result. He claimed that these actions were retaliatory for having filed a grievance against an officer. These actions did not violate his due process rights because the misconduct determinations, his time placed in the restrictive housing unit, and his parole recission, did not, either alone or in combination, create an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. But the prisoner did adequately allege a retaliation claim against a particular officer by claiming that when he refused to confess to a particular charge and instead filed a grievance against this officer, he was placed in administrative custody in retaliation. Fantone v. Latini, #13-3611, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 2470 (3rd Cir.).
An inmate assisted another prisoner in writing a letter to officials outside the state Department of Corrections concerning an officer's alleged acceptance of a pair of ostrich-skin shoes made by the second prisoner. He claimed that the officer subsequently caused him to convince the second prisoner to dismiss his complaint by giving him favorable treatment. The first prisoner filed grievances that the officer had coerced him into doing so and discussed with another inmate a fabrication that he had possessed a cell phone. When a cell phone was found in another inmate's bunk during a search, the first prisoner claimed that he was warned by an officer that disciplinary charges concerning the phone would be filed against him unless he withdrew his grievances. He was charged and found guilty of use of a cell phone, losing privileges and spending 30 days in isolation, and the decision was upheld on review. In a lawsuit for retaliatory discipline, the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded him $1 in nominal damages. A federal appeals court reversed and remanded the decision and award, finding that the prisoner received adequate notice of the disciplinary charges against him. did not show that there were any witnesses or evidence that he was barred from presenting at the disciplinary hearing, and received a copy of the decision of the disciplinary hearing. The defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there was "some evidence" to support the discipline imposed against plaintiff and "some evidence" that he committed the charged infraction. Sanders v. Page, #13-3237, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 22785 (8th Cir.).
The Kentucky Supreme Court found that a prisoner's disciplinary conviction was not supported by some evidence. The committee hearing the case relied entirely on information from confidential informants and there was no information about them or any evidence to show that they could be considered reliable, thus violating the prisoner's due process rights. Haney v. Thomas, #2011-SC-000453,406 S.W.3d 823, 2013 Ky. Lexis 369.
A prisoner's grievance that his rights were violated when he was given six months of disciplinary segregation was upheld and the disciplinary conviction overturned because insufficient details about the specific time, place or date of the incident were given and he allegedly was not allowed to see the official electronics contract forms he was accused of trafficking in or argue any defense during the hearing. In a lawsuit, he sought damages for this, as he had already served his six months of segregation by the time the discipline was overturned. He also claimed that he was improperly denied a cell with bars which he requested because of a childhood incident involving abuse and rape, making him afraid of being behind closed metal doors. He claimed he suffered mental anguish, was attacked by a cellmate, and was only taken out of his cell once a week to shower and use the yard. A federal appeals court upheld a grant of qualified immunity to the defendants as the right to avoid disciplinary segregation in a cell with a solid metal door and a confrontational cell mate for 182 days with weekly access to the shower and recreational yard was not a clearly established right in September 2009. Hardaway v. Meyerhoff, #12-2856, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22386 (7th Cir.).
During an effort to remove a prisoner from his cell, an altercation occurred. Afterwards, an officer filed a major misconduct report, accusing the prisoner of assault and battery. At the hearing, the prisoner pled not guilty and tried to disqualify the hearing officer, claiming that he was biased. He was found guilty and given 30 days in detention. He was not allowed to view a video of the incident, since doing so would "reveal the limitations and capabilities" of the fixed point security device. The prisoner sued, claiming cruel and unusual punishment. The federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the resolution of disputed facts by a major misconduct hearing precluded those issues from being relitigated in subsequent litigation. In this case, the hearing officer's finding that the inmate grabbed the officer's hand rather than, as the inmate claimed, the officer putting his hand into the cell to provide an excuse to pull him out of the cell and assault him. The prisoner was precluded from arguing that issue in subsequent litigation. Peterson v. Johnson, #11-1845, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7370, 2013 Fed App. 0106P (6th Cir.).
A prisoner was disciplined and sanctioned with the forfeiture of 40 days of good time credit and 60 days in disciplinary segregation when a shank was found in his two-inmate cell. He claimed that the weapon was not his. Because each prisoner in the cell was responsible for keeping the cell free of contraband, he could properly be found to have been in constructive possession of the weapon. The mere discovery of the shank in the cell constituted "some evidence" that both prisoners in the cell possessed it, and that was sufficient to uphold the discipline. Denny v. Schultz, # 11-1450, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 3235 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner transported to a county detention center for a court hearing raped another prisoner there. When correctional officials learned of the pending criminal rape charges stemming from the incident, they also initiated disciplinary charges. A disciplinary officer concluded that the prisoner was guilty of disciplinary infractions involving rape and threats to other prisoners and imposed a loss of 69 days earned good time, as well as sending him to disciplinary segregation for 455 days. The prisoner was subsequently convicted of criminal charges. He challenged the disciplinary determination, arguing that his due process rights had been violated by denying him the right to call witnesses or elicit written testimony at the hearing. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed a trial court ruling overturning the discipline. "In focusing on Petitioner's procedural due process rights, the district court appears to have lost sight of the reason for such a hearing. The court failed to appreciate the significance of the intervening criminal convictions - not to whether due process was violated - but, pivotally, to what remedy was appropriate under the circumstances." Perry v. Moya, #32,938, 2012-NMSC-040, 289 P.3d 1247, 2012 N.M. Lexis 415.
A federal appeals court upheld the right of state prison authorities to revoke a prisoner's good-time credits for filing motions for sanctions determined by a federal district court to be "frivolous" in his lawsuit against prison officials. A state statute which authorized such punishment following disciplinary proceedings properly gave officials a tool to punish such behavior and in no way interfered with the legitimate constitutional right of access to the courts. The appeals court, however, certified to the Illinois Supreme Court the issue of whether the state was required to show either that the court making the frivolousness determination had determined that the motions filed satisfied the definitions of frivolous in the state statute, or that the court had otherwise manifested its intent to invoke the state statute. Eichwedel v. Chandler, #09–1031, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18375 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner checked two books out of a prison library and also was permitted to purchase one book. Each of these books had the text of the "Ten-Point Program" of the Black Panther Party from the 1960s. After the prisoner copied the points of the program out on a sheet of paper, which was spotted by an officer, he was given 90 days in segregation for possession of gang literature, based especially on Point 9of the program calling for "freedom for all Black men" in prisons and jails. A federal appeals court rejected his First Amendment claim. While the prisoner argued that the "Ten-Point Program" could not be the basis for a security concern because it was already in books allowed in the prison library and allowed for prisoners to purchase, the court noted that prison librarians "cannot be required to read every word of every book to which inmates might have access to make sure the book contains no incendiary material." Even if a librarian had decided that a book containing the material did not, as a whole, constitute gang literature, that would not have barred a disciplinary proceeding against a prisoner who copied incendiary passages from it. The belief by prison officials that the prisoner could use the Ten-Point Program to enlist a prison gang was not so implausible that it could be dismissed as groundless. The program could be viewed by prison officials as an incitement to violence by black prisoners. The court did, however, order further proceedings on the prisoner's claim that his due process rights were violated by the fact that prison officials failed to notify prisoners that they were not to copy certain passages from books they checked out from the library or were allowed to buy. Toston v. Thurmer, #11-3914, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 15966 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner could not prevail on his due process challenge to discipline based on allegedly false misbehavior reports filed by corrections officers when nothing indicated that he was denied a fair opportunity to dispute the charges, and the disciplinary decision itself had "some basis" in reliable evidence. Livingston v. Kelly, #10-2022, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 10716 (2nd Cir.).
A Wisconsin prisoner was placed in the prison's most restrictive disciplinary segregation for 240 days because he had committed misconduct while in a less restrictive disciplinary segregation environment. In his lawsuit complaining about this and the procedures used to find that he had violated the rules, the prisoner failed to show that the conditions he was placed in deprived him of constitutionally protected liberty or property. The prisoner needed to, but failed to, show that the conditions in the prison's most restrictive disciplinary segregation were more onerous than those of a high-security prison in Wisconsin, to which a prisoner may be assigned without any opportunity for a hearing. While due process requires a hearing before a prisoner loses more liberty than he lost as a result of his conviction and sentence, "the right comparison is between the ordinary conditions of a high-security prison in the state, and the conditions under which a prisoner is actually held." Marion v. Radtke, #10-2446, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11054 (7th Cir.).
After a riot in a prison recreation yard, during which members of two Hispanic gangs attacked African-American prisoners, a member of one of the gangs was subjected to discipline because he confessed during an interrogation that he joined the brawl because the gang required it. This discipline was supported by sufficient evidence, including a videotape of the incident as well as the confession, despite the prisoner's later claim at the hearing that he did not actually participate in the fight. The fact that the hearing officer may not have himself watched the video, instead receiving an investigator's summary of the evidence contained in the video, did not alter the result. The prisoner's rights were not violated because he was not shown the video since it was determined that it was not exculpatory. Estrada v. Holinka, #10-3313, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9377 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner's due process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing when the hearing officer failed to watch security videotapes of the time at issue to resolve the conflict between a security captain's statement that the assault at issue had not been recorded, and the accused prisoner's testimony that the captain had previously told him that it was captured on videotape. It did not violate due process, however, to allow the victim of the assault not to testify, as "institutional concerns, including the possibility of retaliation, may make it wholly impractical to compel an inmate's testimony at a disciplinary hearing." Burns v. PA Dept. of Corrections, #09-2872, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7999 (3rd Cir.).
After a search of his cell, a Massachusetts prisoner was charged with several offenses, including possession of a concealed razor blade and other items posing a security risk. He sued, claiming that various prison employees and officials violated his rights in connection with the subsequent disciplinary hearing, at which he was found guilty of five charges. The appeals court found that the disciplinary determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The appeals court also found no merit in the prisoner's claim that the search of his cell and subsequent discipline were carried out for retaliatory motives. Santiago v. Russo, #09-573, 2010 Mass. App. Lexis 1200, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 612.
A California prisoner claimed that prison officials violated his rights by issuing him a false disciplinary violation. The appeals court held that his lawsuit was properly dismissed in light of the fact that his disciplinary violation and the associated penalties were reversed through an administrative appeal, and because he did not assert that his resulting administrative segregation imposed an "atypical and significant hardship." Under the due process clause, a prisoner may challenge a state disciplinary action only if it "deprives or restrains a state-created liberty interest in some 'unexpected manner'" or "imposes some 'atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life'" Harper v. Costa, #09-16988, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18085 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
An intermediate New Jersey appeals court has upheld the disciplining of a prisoner for possession of a weapon, sharpened instrument, or unauthorized tool, after he was observed at his welding shop work assignment using a grinder to hone a metal object to a point. While the prisoner claimed that the three and a half inch metal object was not a weapon, but for the purpose of marking his initials for identification into his metal shop project, "the regulation charged does not require proof that the inmate actually intended to use the prohibited item as a weapon. Possession in itself of an item that is a sharpened instrument or an unauthorized tool is a violation." Since he admitted possessing the object, his excuse for doing so did not alleviate the "dangerous activity of fabricating such a tool or instrument without express authorization of prison officials." Jimenez v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, #A-5965-08T3, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. Lexis 2103.
A prisoner who received 132 disciplinary tickets for violating various rules sued over his placement in disciplinary segregation for a total of 22 months, and also claimed that his due process rights were violated in a disciplinary proceeding because he had been denied the right to call a witness. An intermediate Illinois appeals court ruled that the disciplinary segregation had not implicated any liberty interest the prisoner had under federal law. He was not subject to any "atypical and significant hardship" by his placement into disciplinary segregation compared to the general conditions in the super-maximum security prison where he was already confined. It also found that the denial of his request to call a witness did not deprive him of due process when he refused to use a required witness request form, and also sought to introduce irrelevant testimony about the alleged homosexual orientation of a guard. Taylor v. Frey, #5-08-0210, 2011 Ill. App. Lexis 28 (5th Dist.).
A prisoner claimed that prison officials deprived him of due process in connection with a disciplinary hearing concerning his killing of another inmate. Official capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Individual capacity claims against a prison investigator assigned to help him were also rejected on appeal. The prisoner claimed that the investigator, to whom he had given written interrogatories for several witnesses, had violated his due process rights by delaying his access to the responses until after the disciplinary hearing. The appeals court found that the minimal due process available for a disciplinary hearing does not include access to interrogatory responses. Additionally, the prisoner had no due-process right to confront or cross-examine witnesses, "and was not even entitled to a hearing investigator." Thompson v. Stapleton, #09-1504, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25702 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A guard found marijuana and barbiturates in a cell that the plaintiff prisoner shared with four other inmates, and he was found guilty of possession of contraband, losing 40 days of good time credit, based on a prison rule making all prisoners responsible for all contraband found in their cells. Rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the prisoner, a federal appeals court ruled that "it has not been established to this day that collective responsibility among prisoners is unconstitutional." The fact that a trial judge in Colorado, after the prisoner was transferred there from Illinois, had a different view, restoring the prisoner's good time credits because another prisoner had confessed that the drugs were his, did not alter the result, as none of the defendants in the civil rights lawsuit were parties to the Colorado habeas proceeding. Shelby v. Whitehouse, #10-1419, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23100 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A California prisoner found guilty of disciplinary charges for unlawful influence of staff, and punished by a loss of good time credits, claimed that his due process rights were violated because he was denied the opportunity to call four staff witnesses at the hearing. Because the record indicated that the proposed testimony by these witnesses was irrelevant to the issues in the hearing, the prisoner was not denied due process by the exclusion of these witnesses. Williams v. Finn, #09-16010, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18039 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A prisoner found guilty of disciplinary charges of possessing inmate-manufactured alcohol argued that his due process and equal protection rights were violated at his hearing. He contended that the guilty finding was not supported by "some evidence," and that the hearing officer improperly denied his request to call three additional witnesses. The appeals court found that there was, in fact, some evidence in the record supporting the conviction, and that the proposed testimony of the additional witnesses would have been irrelevant. The fact that the plaintiff prisoner was found guilty of possession of the alcohol, while other inmates, allegedly in the same circumstances, were exonerated did not show a violation of equal protection of law. While equal protection ensures that similarly situated persons are treated alike, it does not ensure "absolute equality." Smith v. Yates, #09-16158, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20459 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A federal prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming that there were various irregularities and due process violations in the disciplinary hearing which resulted in him losing commissary, visiting, and telephone privileges, as well as receiving additional time in the "hole," and 27 additional days in prison. He also claimed that he was subject to illegal retaliation for pursuing his administrative remedies, and was therefore subjected to "diesel therapy" a punishment he defined as being transported in shackles and a belly-chain around the country with stops in the "holes" of various federal prison facilities. He was charged with filing fraudulently notarized liens (which he characterized as grievances). The appeals court upheld the dismissal of most of his clams, as he could not challenge the conditions of his confinement in a habeas corpus proceeding. It reinstated, however, his claim that his due process rights were violated during his disciplinary hearing, which he asserted was a sham trial because he was not permitted to face his accusers, and which resulted in 27 days' additional confinement. He could pursue this claim in a habeas petition, since it involved the duration of his confinement. Stanko v. Obama, #09-4668, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19688 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner was found guilty of lying to a prison staff member in a complaint letter she wrote. That determination was reversed on appeal as not being supported by substantial evidence. The offense charged was falsely asserting that a correctional officer had stopped the delivery of her commissary purchases, and she was found guilty based on evidence that the purchases were in fact delivered. An examination of the letter, however, revealed that the prisoner had not asserted that the officer had actually succeeded in stopping the deliveries, but instead had "instructed 1st shift officers working with him to stop my deliveries." The court concluded that "there is an undeniable disparity between what the disciplinary report charged and the evidence which formed the basis for the adjudication of guilt." Vazquez v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, #A-4923-08T2, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. Lexis 2260.
A New Jersey prisoner claimed that his due process rights were violated when he was punished by the loss of 207 days good conduct time for having a cell phone SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card in his cell. The prisoner failed to present any evidence to support his assertion that he had been "set up" on the charge. The failure to disclose the contents of the SIM card to him was not a violation of his rights. He was charged with possession of the card as contraband, so its contents, such as the identity of the true owner, the phone number, and the calls made were not relevant to exonerating him of the charges. Donahue v. Grondolsky, #10-1147, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19097 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A New Jersey prisoner was found guilty of disciplinary infractions of tattooing or self-mutilation, and of refusing to accept a housing assignment. He was about to be transferred from a "special needs" unit into the general population of the prison, which he did not want, as there had been publicity about him inheriting money because of the death of a relative. Fearing he would be subject to extortion in the general population, he straightened a paper clip and used it to cut his arms until they bled. While the prisoner claimed that the evidence used against him at the hearing was not "substantial" as required under state correctional rules, he did not deny doing the charged acts, so the court found no basis to overturn the discipline. Reldan v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, #A-6348-08T3, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. Lexis 1854.
A federal prisoner was accused of involvement in a fight with another prisoner. He was provided with a copy of the incident report two days after it occurred, and informed that he was being charged with fighting. Four days later, a disciplinary committee referred the matter to a hearing officer who later held a hearing, and imposed sanctions on the prisoner of the loss of 27 days of good-conduct time, 100 days' confinement in a special housing unit, and a transfer to another facility. The prisoner argued that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive written notice of the proceedings against him within 24 hours of the incident. Rejecting this claim, the appeals court noted that Wolff v. McDonnell, #73-679, 418 U.S. 539 (1975) does not require notice of the disciplinary proceedings within 24 hours of the incident, but rather no less than 24 hours before a hearing on those charges. "It sets no time limit for providing notice of charges after an incident." Dedrick v. Daniels, #10-1183, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15726 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A Texas prisoner claimed that he obeyed an officer's orders to walk along the right side of a yellow line in an orderly manner, but that minutes later, he was approached in his cell and handcuffed by another officer for failing to follow the order. He was charged with a disciplinary offense of creating a disturbance, allegedly in retaliation for complaints his family had made about his treatment at the prison. The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the hearing officer properly declined to call, as a witness, the officer who handcuffed the prisoner, as he was not present at the time of the alleged misconduct. Also, there was no evidence that the disciplinary hearing resulted in any punishment that would be sufficient to deter the prisoner from the exercise of his First Amendment rights, so his retaliation claim failed. Institutional Division of Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Powell. #08-0345, 2010 Tex. Lexis 480.
A prisoner was observed reaching into his pants during a visit with his fiancee, and a search of her revealed pills that she had not had upon entering the visiting room. The prisoner was convicted of disciplinary charges of smuggling, providing medication to another person, and violating visitation rules. An intermediate N.Y. appeals court held that the charges were adequately supported by substantial evidence, based on the misbehavior report, documentary evidence, and hearing testimony. The prisoner was, however, entitled to see any statements made by his fiancee to investigators, absent any indication that she had requested anonymity, been promised anonymity, or was a confidential informant. He was also entitled to a copy of her letter appealing the suspension of her contact visitation privileges, and to copies of videotapes relating to the incident and copies of a memo written by corrections officers concerning the charges. Gomez v. Fischer, #506729, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4589 (3rd Dept.).
After a search of a concealed hole in the wall next to a bed assigned to two inmates revealed a cell phone and charger, which were contraband, a disciplinary hearing found an inmate guilty of charges relating to these items. The prisoner claimed that this violated his due process rights since the items were in a common area adjoining the sleeping areas of five prisoners, all of whom denied possession. He argued that there was no evidence of his constructive possession of the items. Rejecting this argument, the appeals court found that there was "some" evidence of his constructive possession, and that this was all that due process required. Flannagan v. Tamez, #09-10322, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4772 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
An Ohio prisoner was accused of unauthorized consumption of drugs or an intoxicating substance and found guilty of disciplinary charges but this determination was subsequently reversed by the director of the state Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. In the prisoner's subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit, the court held that the prisoner had waived the right to call witnesses at his hearing, and that even if that was not true, there would have been no constitutional violation, as he had no protected liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation, or the wearing of a different colored uniform, which were the sanctions imposed. These did not amount to atypical and significant hardships requiring due process protections before their imposition. David v. Lake Erie Correctional Inst., #2009-A-0022, 2010 Ohio App. Lexis 1083 (11th Dist.).
A New York prisoner was charged and found guilty of various disciplinary offenses, including violating a direct order, violent conduct, and refusing to comply with frisk procedures. There was substantial evidence to support these determinations, based on a misbehavior report, supporting documentation, and the testimony of one of the officers involved in the incident. The prisoner's claim that his rights were violated because he was denied a request to call another officer as a witness at the disciplinary hearing had no merit, as that officer had not witnessed the events at issue. Bermudez v. Fischer, #507740, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 2410 (3rd Dept. A.D.).
A prisoner was disciplined for possession and distribution of contraband, specifically a booklet entitled "The Politics of Parole." which appeared to have been published by an officially sanctioned prisoner's group that he belonged to, the "Long Termers Committee," although it may not have been properly approved by the group. The booklet, which the prisoner was the principal author of, criticized parole policies and practices, and stated that the Parole Board was prone to corruption and political influence. A federal appeals court found that the rules concerning contraband and smuggling, under which the prisoner was sanctioned, were unconstitutionally vague. The rule concerning contraband was addressed to possession of an unauthorized item, the court noted, and did not address organizational activity, or distribution of materials within the facility. The rule about smuggling concerned sending materials into or out of the facility. There was no indication that materials such as the pamphlet, which arguably violated the inmate organization's internal bylaws (because not officially approved), were contraband. While the prisoner might have been able to be sanctioned under other rules for violating the bylaws, the contraband rule did not clearly cover the pamphlet. Further, the pamphlet, if simply created and possessed by the prisoner himself, without it claiming to be an official publication of the committee (which requires approval of a staff advisor) would not have violated any prison rules. The rules against contraband and smuggling, the court further reasoned, also gave "almost complete enforcement discretion" to prison officials. The rules cited failed to give the prisoner notice that his actions were forbidden, and it was clearly established that he had a right not to be punished under one set of rules that did not apply, even if the same conduct might arguably violate other rules, so the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Farid v. Ellen, #07-4057, 593 F.3d 233 (2nd Cir. 2010).
A prisoner was found guilty of self-mutilation, fraud, and bribery in a disciplinary hearing, based on evidence that he and another prisoner had staged their fight. He then filed a lawsuit against a number of correctional officers, asserting that they failed to protect him from assault, provided him with inadequate medical attention for his injuries, and created an atmosphere where prisoners could be deprived of due process. Since the prisoner had staged a "phony" fight, his failure to protect claim lacked merit, and success on that claim would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction, which had not been set aside. He also failed to show that he really needed any medical treatment, as he did not suffer serious injuries. His other claims were also without merit. Jackson v. Mizzel, #09-30667, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1258 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner found guilty on disciplinary charges of failing to provide a urine sample for drug testing within a two hour deadline was given all the process he was due, since he received 24 hours notice of the charges against him, the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses, and was given a written decision stating the evidence relied on and the reasons for the decision. There was some evidence to support a finding of willfulness in the failure to provide a urine sample within the time deadline, and no documented medical condition in the prisoner's records that would justify an extension of that deadline. Void v. Warden, #08-2887, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20176 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner found guilty of disciplinary charges of conspiring with visitors to smuggle drugs into the facility, and of using the inmate phone system and "coded language" to facilitate the conspiracy, claimed that the hearing officer violated his rights by refusing to show him a written explanation of the supposed meaning of his codes that was used in finding him guilty. The explanation was used to establish the meaning of the content of the prisoner's recorded phone conversations, which the hearing officer stated he did not understand much of. The explanation, provided to the officer by an investigator, was written by an unnamed third party. The court found that the refusal to provide this document to the prisoner, in the absence of any explanation why it could not be provided, violated his due process rights. The prisoner was granted a new hearing on the disciplinary charges. Tolliver v. Fischer, #5256/08, 2008-10578, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 9028 (A.D. 2nd Dept.).
A disciplinary hearing notice that stated the date and time when a corrections officer allegedly found a cellular phone in the prisoner's cell was sufficient and provided enough details to allow the prisoner to dispute the charges and claim that the phone was not his and that another prisoner had thrown it in his cell. While details about where in the cell the phone had been located would have been helpful, the absence of such details did not mean that the prisoner's rights were violated, as the officer's statement that the phone was in the inmate's assigned living area, along with a photo he took of that area provided some indication of this. The prisoner, who did not claim that he was unaware that possession of cell phones was prohibited, could not avoid discipline on the basis that he allegedly failed to receive a memo circulated by the warden explaining this. McGill v. Martinez, #09-1750, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22762 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
Even if aspects of a disciplinary hearing arguably violated Indiana disciplinary procedures, this was insufficient to show a violation of federal civil rights. The court also rejected a federal due process claim, finding that the presence of the prisoner's name on a forged document found in a copy machine was sufficient to support a determination that he forged the document in violation of prison rules. The alleged failure to call a witness that the prisoner had requested did not show a violation of his rights when he failed to state what the witness would have said or how it would have helped him. Boyd v. Finnan, #08-3685, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22295 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that a letter he wrote to his girlfriend had been "stolen" from his cell and improperly used in a disciplinary hearing against him. The court pointed out that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply in the context of a prison cell. The prisoner failed to show any interference with his right of reasonable correspondence with the outside world. He failed to show any due process violation, as the sanctions imposed were not an atypical or significant hardship. Perry v. Lackawanna County, #09-2403, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20781 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner's claim that he was disciplined for sending a note to another prisoner, which violated a legitimate regulation, was an insufficient basis for a claim of unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The prisoner did allege sufficient facts to create a due process claim regarding the alleged denial of his right to call requested witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. He claimed that despite having requested these witnesses repeatedly before and during the hearing, an officer falsely wrote down that no witnesses were requested. No argument was presented that the witnesses were denied for reasons of institutional safety or other legitimate correctional objectives, and the requested witnesses appeared to have information relevant to the prisoner's claim that a correctional officer was spreading false rumors that h was a "snitch" and that some inmates had been bribed to testify falsely against him. Moulds v. Bullard, #08-10706, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18296 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
The temporary placement of the plaintiff prisoner in an observation cell because it was believed he might be suicidal did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court also rejected claims based on the alleged failure to provide promised ambulatory aids and dietary supplements if the prisoner would end his hunger strike. The prisoner could proceed, however, on his claim that he was not provided with advance notice of a claimed disciplinary violation. Cox v. Clark, #07-16812, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7526 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
After officers found a bottle of correction fluid and a magazine article showing "scantily clothed" women in a prisoner's possession, he was convicted of two disciplinary violations. While the hearing did not result in any loss of custody credits, the inmate did stipulate to a two-year denial of parole. Upholding this result, a California appeals court found that the adverse impact of rule violations on a prisoner's parole does not implicate due process guarantees requiring judicial review of the result. There was some evidence supporting the findings made at the hearing, so that, even if the prisoner had presented a due process claim subject to judicial review, his claim would have failed. In re: Johnson, #F055768, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 1285 (Cal. App. 5th Dist.).
Upholding a disciplinary determination that an inmate was guilty of actions with his cellmate that could be perceived as sexual acts, and that were disruptive to the institution, a federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner's due process rights were not violated by failing to allow him to present testimony by his cellmate that they had not engaged in sexual acts, since engaging in actual sexual acts was not the specific charge. The prisoner's rights were also not violated by the failure to provide him with video footage on the hallway outside his cell, showing the activities of two officers, since the tape did not depict the prisoner's actions inside the cell which were the basis of the charges against him. The disciplinary action against the prisoner was supported by "some evidence" in the record, and the prisoner was also not prejudiced by the failure to provide him with a copy of an incident report written by one of the officers, since it did not differ substantially from another officer's incident report that he did receive. Pachtinger v. Grondolsky, #09-2543, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16627 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An inmate could not proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages because his due process rights were allegedly denied during a disciplinary hearing when the disciplinary conviction had not been overturned on appeal or otherwise set aside, and when prevailing on his due process claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary conviction. Thomas v. Quarterman, #08-20812, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15244 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
While a prisoner was initially convicted of fighting, violent conduct, and creating a disturbance, the two latter charges were reversed on administrative appeal. The prisoner was ultimately sentenced to six months in a special housing unit solely on the fighting charge that he had pled guilty to. As a result, any procedural defects in the initial disciplinary hearing did not cause him any negative consequences, so that he could not pursue a due process claim. Barnes v. Henderson, #06-CV-6363, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52730 (W.D.N.Y.).
While a prisoner who suffered loss of good time credits following a disciplinary conviction was entitled to due process, the record showed that he received all process that was due, including notice of the charges against him, an opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses, and a written decision, which was supported by some evidence. A second disciplinary conviction did not result in the loss of good time credits, but only disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges, so that no viable due process claim was raised. Fiore v. Lindsay, #08-4785, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13404 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner's involvement with an outside organization claiming to seek better treatment of prisoners resulted in disciplinary convictions for lying, soliciting a staff member, and engaging in a business or enterprise. He claimed that he was denied due process in challenging these convictions, because he was not provided with tapes or transcripts of calls between himself and his wife, which he argued contained exculpatory information. The court rejected this claim, noting that the prisoner could have submitted the same evidence through his wife's affidavit. Brown v. Schneiter, #08-3744, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12728 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner could not pursue his claim that prison officials tampered with a videotape purportedly showing that he did not assault prison guards. He was ultimately subjected to prison discipline and criminal conviction on charges concerning the assault. Success on his federal civil rights lawsuit would imply the invalidity of his conviction, and was therefore barred when the conviction had not first been set aside. Ruiz v. Hofbauer, #08-1257, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10850 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner did not have a right to review all the potentially inculpatory evidence before a disciplinary hearing began. Additionally, while he complained of not receiving certain documentary evidence at all, it was provided to him orally. His claim that he was denied the right to call witnesses was contradicted by the fact that he did, in fact, call a witness, and his failure to name any particular witness he was allegedly prevented from calling. His general attack on the hearing officer as "immoral, not impartial and not unbiased" was not supported by any particulars. There was, the court found, "some evidence" in the record to support disciplinary action against the prisoner, and no proof of a violation of his due process rights. The prisoner also failed to show that the incident report was filed against him in retaliation for his prior filing of a federal civil rights lawsuit, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Lasko v. Holt, #08-4216, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11482 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
It was undisputed that the prisoner received both notice of the charges against him and the opportunity to present a defense at a disciplinary hearing that resulted in the loss of good time credits. The fact that a form filled out at the hearing indicated that the prisoner made no comment provided some evidence that he did attend the hearing. There was no showing that his due process rights were violated. Muhammad v. Wiley, #08-1351, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10791 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Evidence adequately supported decision against inmate in a disciplinary hearing over a fight he had with his cellmate. His "bare" claim that he was innocent did not excuse the fact that he procedurally defaulted on most of his claims concerning the hearing. The examination of the prisoner after the fight by a health services staff member, although not a physician, could be relied on to determine whether marks on the prisoner were a laceration from a fight or a cold sore. Even if all the evidence the inmate challenged were set aside, there was sufficient evidence, including a form concerning injuries to the cellmate and photos of the two prisoners after the fight, to support the hearing officer's decision. Pinet v. Holt, #08-3571, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5260 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Disciplinary determination finding prisoner guilty of drug possession and smuggling was supported by "some evidence" including reports that a prison official saw him swallow something, that drugs were found in his feces, and that drugs were found in his room. The fact that the determination was reversed, and that a second hearing officer reached a different result did not show, by itself, that the first hearing officer was biased. The prisoner also failed to allege that the purportedly false reports of his involvement in drug offenses were issued out of a retaliatory purpose. Requiring the prisoner to defecate within the view of others in a drug watch room did not violate his right to privacy. Sital v. Burgio, 06-CV-6072, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1127 (W.D.N.Y.).
While a prisoner sought damages for violation of his civil rights on the basis that false disciplinary charges were filed against him, this amounted to a claim for malicious prosecution, which does not amount to a violation of constitutional rights. Williams v. Dretke, No. 07-11071, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 512 (5th Cir.).
Even if eleven days a prisoner spent in a special housing unit before his disciplinary hearing were included with the 90 days of such confinement imposed as a penalty, the length of his confinement was not "atypical or significant," so that he could not pursue his due process challenge to the disciplinary proceeding at which he was found guilty of six rule violations, based on the accusation that he made copies of games and software on his computer, providing those copies to another inmate. Borcsok v. Early, No. 07-4042, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23225 (2nd Cir.).
Even if one of the correctional officials were found to have entrapped a prisoner into a disciplinary violation, as he claimed, there was no showing that this was done in retaliation for the prisoner's testimony in a federal class action lawsuit against the correctional facility. Summary judgment for the defendants was therefore appropriate in the prisoner's First Amendment lawsuit. Clark v. Johnston, Case No. 4:07 CV 941, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101483 (N.D. Ohio).
There was a lack of evidence that a prison employee who filed a disciplinary report against a prisoner had knowledge of his prior federal civil rights lawsuit, justifying summary judgment on the prisoner's retaliation claims. Bennett v. Goord, No. 06-3818, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24441 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A federal prisoner lost good conduct time when convicted in a disciplinary proceeding of fighting with another prisoner, and he sued, claiming that he was denied due process, based on a failure to inform him of the evidence against him and a reliance on hearsay in an incident report. While the lawsuit was pending, however, he was granted supervised release on his sentence, although he was transferred to another facility on the basis of an indictment for mail fraud. He could not continue to pursue his due process claim, since he did not suffer any actual continuing injury once his incarceration on his sentence ended. The possibility that the discipline would have an impact on his classification in the future was too "speculative" to show continuing consequences, and he suffered no continuing harm from the loss of good time credits. Scott v. Schuykill FCI, No. 07-4494, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23215 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Federal prisoner received all the process that was due him in two disciplinary proceedings. In the first, he received notice of the alleged offense, an opportunity to present a defense through documentary evidence and witnesses, help from a prison staff member, and a written decision summarizing the evidence relied on and the reasons for the sanctions imposed. Additionally, in that proceeding, the prisoner himself admitted making a phone call that violated prison rules, and requesting that his brother get in touch with a third party, which supported the disciplinary determination. In the second proceeding, the sanctions imposed--which included two months' loss of commissary privileges and a suspended sentence of disciplinary segregation-- did not constitute a sufficient hardship to deprive the plaintiff of a liberty interest, so that due process protections were inapplicable. Milton v. Ray, No. 08-1593, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24925 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner received adequate notice of female prison volunteer's accusation that he touched her in a sexually inappropriate way when her email containing the accusation was read to him prior to a disciplinary hearing. The failure to provide him with a written copy of the email did not violate his due process rights. Brenneman v. Knight, No. 08-2121, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22498 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Colorado prisoner did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in staying in the general population and out of administrative segregation, especially in the absence of any specific claims about the length or conditions of the administrative segregation. Restricting him for 14 months from possessing headphones, glasses, a lamp, fan, and television while on restricted privilege status also did not violate any constitutionally protected liberty interest. Further, the prisoner's claims concerning his disciplinary convictions could not be pursued in a federal civil rights lawsuit when they had not been overturned on appeal or otherwise invalidated. Doyle v. Cella, Civil Action No. 07-cv-01126, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83837 (D. Co.).
A prisoner's federal civil rights claims seeking restoration of his lost good-time credits, reversal of a disciplinary decision, and expungement of the disciplinary action was barred by the fact that the disciplinary action had not previously been set aside. He could, however, pursue a due process claim based on the alleged failure to provide him with a written statement of the evidence against him in the disciplinary hearing. White v. Fox, No. 05-41387, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21078 (5th Cir.).
When a prisoner pled guilty, in a disciplinary proceeding, to having refused a direct order, he was barred from subsequently challenging the evidence that supported a guilty determination. Evidence sufficiently supported a finding of guilt on additional charges of fighting with another prisoner and engaging in violent conduct. Under the circumstances presented, the prisoner could be found guilty of a violation of the rules even if he did not start the fight in question. Wilson v. Dubray, No. 504376, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6597 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
Federal appeals court upheld, in part, the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that prison officials engaged in disability discrimination by holding a disciplinary hearing without providing a sign language interpreter. Claims, which, if successful, would imply the invalidity of the disciplinary conviction that caused a loss of good-time credits could not be pursued when the prisoner failed to show that the conviction had already been overturned. The prisoner could, however, on remand, pursue claims that concerned the conditions of his confinement and were independent of a challenge to his disciplinary conviction. Fresquez v. Moeroyk, No. 06-17273, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16772 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that a disciplinary board was confused about the facts of his case because it heard two other cases during the same sitting. While the prisoner had wanted to call his cell mate as an adverse witness in order to try to discredit an earlier statement the cellmate made, the court found that there was no constitutional right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness in a disciplinary proceeding. Wilson-El v. Finnan, No. 07-2861, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12670 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
An inmate's action of kissing a nurse on the cheek was insufficient to support disciplinary charges against him for "soliciting a sexual act." Despite the nurse's testimony that the inmate did not harass her, however, the rule against harassment was broad enough to cover the prisoner's conduct. The court ordered expunging from the prisoner's record of all references to the charge of "soliciting a sexual act." Wells v. Dubray, No. 504063, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6255 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
Court rejects prisoner's claim that he was improperly charged and convicted of disciplinary offenses arising out of the finding of a cell phone that prison employees traced back to him. Changing the charge in the charging document to engaging in conduct that disrupted or interfered with security was not improper, since the prisoner had one week after the charge was altered to prepare his defense. The hearing officer did not become the "charging officer" by changing the charging document to reflect the appropriate charge under current prison policies, nor did this show that he was not impartial. Greer v. Hogston, No. 08-1142, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15016 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
The failure to provide a charged prisoner in a disciplinary hearing with all the times and places of specific sexual encounters between himself and his cellmate was not essential to his ability to defend himself in a disciplinary hearing against charges that he had persuaded the cellmate to perform oral sex on him in exchange for commissary items, and had hit the cellmate in the face. The summary of the charges and evidence supplied to the prisoner did not deny his right to due process, since he knew when he had been housed with the cellmate and the time period in which the alleged misconduct would have occurred. Ball v. Raemisch, No. 07-cv-670, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 47598 (W.D. Wis.).
Once a prisoner was released on parole, any claim concerning the restoration of good time credits lost at a disciplinary hearing were moot because a determination concerning that would have no impact on the length of time of his parole. Washington v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-01537, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 47867 (E.D. Cal.).
Imposing sanctions on a prisoner, including the loss of 151 days of good conduct time, for a charge of possession of a controlled substance was improper when there was no evidence that he possessed or even constructively possessed the heroin in question. There was evidence that he asked someone outside the prison to send him heroin, and that it was concealed on a postcard addressed to him, but the postcard was intercepted by a guard in the prison mailroom. Since the only charge brought against the prisoner was "possession," and he never possessed the drugs, the court vacated the finding of guilt by the disciplinary hearing, and restored the prisoner's good conduct credits. In re Rothwell, No. D051584, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 943 (4th Dist.).
No evidence in the record supported disciplinary charges that a prisoner ever charged or received a fee or favors for his services or that he had acted as a "writ writer" for other prisoners. Additionally, the prisoner's request that the officer who had filed the charges against him be called as a witness at the disciplinary hearing was improperly denied without any reason related to institutional safety and security. The alleged conduct of the prisoner, which involved him paying money to another prisoner in connection with a letter to a bank, rather than him receiving funds, did not violate the regulation under which he had been charged. The court therefore ordered the defendants to either hold a new disciplinary hearing or reinstate the loss of statutory good time imposed as a sanction for the disciplinary conviction. Disciplinary convictions related to another letter, which made threats against the prison staff, however, were upheld. Jones v. McDaniel, No. 3:04-CV-0524, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38816 (D. Nev.).
Removal of a prisoner from his misconduct hearing by correctional officers and prison nurses did not violate his First Amendment rights. His statement at the proceeding that the hearing officer was a "foul and corrupted bitch" was not protected by the First Amendment and constituted "insolence" in violation of prison regulations, questioning the hearing officer's authority and the proceeding's integrity. The court also found that the amount of force used was minimal and reasonable under the circumstances. The prisoner also failed to show deliberate indifference to his medical needs for his minor cuts and lacerations. Lockett v. Suardini, No. 06-2392, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10359 (6th Cir.).
Discipline of prisoner was supported by adequate evidence, including testimony by one officer stating that he had observed him out of his cell when he was supposed to be in it for a head count, and other evidence of the confiscation of altered property from the prisoner's cell. Wilson-El v. Finnan, No. 07-1703, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7713 (7th Cir.).
The fact that a guard may have filed charges of trading or trafficking" in tobacco against a prisoner because he "had it in" for him did not alter the fact that the penalties of one month's segregation, the loss of commissary privileges, and loss of prison employment did not violate due process as they did not deprive him of either "liberty" or "property." Antoine v. Uchtman, No. 07-2691, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9483 (7th Cir.).
Denial of the opportunity to present evidence at a disciplinary hearing of a prior involuntary protective custody report filed against the prisoner did not render the hearing unfair, when the prisoner failed to explain how that report was in any way relevant to the current hearing. Reyes v. Leclaire, No. 2007-04628, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 2800 (A.D. 2nd Dept.).
The fact that a prisoner had been released from custody, barring him from obtaining habeas corpus relief, did not relieve him of his need to show that a disciplinary determination against him had been overturned before pursuing a federal civil rights claim for alleged violation of his due process rights, resulting in a loss of good time credit, which caused him to serve additional prison time. The plaintiff failed to show the required prior overturning of the disciplinary determination. The magistrate judge, in an action that had no effect on the result in the case, the dismissal of the lawsuit, still declined to reverse a prior holding that the plaintiff's constitutional rights to adequate notice had been violated in relation to the disciplinary hearing. Dible v. Scholl, No. C05-4089, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17907 (N.D. Iowa).
A prisoner's claim that his constitutional due process rights were violated in a disciplinary proceeding was barred by his failure to show that the results of the hearing had previously been invalidated. Summary judgment was properly granted against the plaintiff in his federal civil rights lawsuit. Crane v. Wheeler, No. 05-17410, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6026 (9th Cir.).
Federal appeals court rejects prisoner's argument that his due process rights were violated in a disciplinary proceeding because an investigative employee assigned to him failed to actually assist him. The assignment of such an assistant under California regulations did not mean that the prisoner had a federal due process constitutional right to such assistance. Trujillo v. Vaughn, No. 06-17104, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5602 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that his constitutional due process rights were violated when he was allegedly denied access to the law library as a disciplinary sanction, and who also claimed that the sanction was unlawfully imposed without a hearing could not use a habeas corpus petition to challenge the sanction, since it did not have an impact on the length of his confinement. He did not claim that he lost good time credits, nor did he seek a release from custody. The prisoner could instead seek to challenge the sanctions imposed in a federal civil rights lawsuit, since his claims involved the conditions of his confinement rather than their duration. Williams-Bey v. Buss, No. 06-4204, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5968 (7th Cir.).
Prison rule concerning possession of contraband was clear enough to provide prisoner with notice that his possession of twenty-nine identification card size photographs of himself violated the rule. Disciplinary determination against him was therefore upheld. Garcia v. Selsky, No. 502714, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 1431 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
In a case where the decision of a prison disciplinary officer was reversed and the prisoner was released from segregation early, with his earned and good time credit restored, and his privileges returned within 30 days, the court rejects the prisoner's due process claims. Burse v. Bennett, Civil Action No. 4:06CV100, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9309 (S.D. Miss.).
Because an award of damages for a prisoner on his due process claim concerning his disciplinary conviction would have implied the invalidity of that conviction, and that conviction had not yet been set aside, he could not pursue his claim for damages. Additionally, claims against officials of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections in their official capacity were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Ali v. Dinwiddie, No. 07-CV-059, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8151 (N.D. Ok.).
Prisoner, under Illinois administrative procedures, did not have a right to confront or cross-examine witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, but was able to submit questions for the witnesses to the disciplinary committee before the hearing, which would be asked unless the committee found them to be irrelevant, cumulative, or a threat to individual safety or institutional security. Because the prisoner failed to raise a constitutional objection and failed to comply with the authorized procedures, he could not pursue his claim that he had been "retaliated" against for attempting to "present evidence" to the committee. Johnson v. Evinger, No. 06-2103, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2555 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that prison official violated his rights by conducting a biased hearing at which he was convicted on a false charge, and by failing to explain the evidence relied on, was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), since a favorable result in the lawsuit would imply the invalidity of the loss of good time credits, impacting on the length of his confinement, and the disciplinary determination had not been set aside. A claim that the prison official who allegedly filed a false disciplinary charge against him did so in retaliation for his cooperation in an internal investigation at the facility was barred because the disciplinary determination was supported by some evidence. Davis v. Baughman, No. 07-1581, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2541 (8th Cir.).
Disciplinary determination against prisoner concerning contraband was adequately supported by "some evidence" against him. Additionally, some of the prisoner's claims--such as that a Bureau of Prisons regulation making it an inmate's responsibility to keep his cell free of contraband did not apply to low security institutions, could not be considered on appeal when he did not assert them in his administrative proceedings. Reyes v. Attorney General of the U.S., No. 07-3289, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29249 (3rd Cir.).
When a disciplinary determination against a prisoner had not previously been invalidated, he could not pursue federal civil rights claims for damages allegedly arising out of the alleged violation of his due process rights during the proceedings. Roberts v. Wilson, No. 07-10433, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29160 (11th Cir.).
Failing to hold disciplinary hearing within seven days of the alleged violations did not violate the prisoner's rights. The New York state regulations concerning the time for such hearings were interpreted as being "directory" rather than "mandatory," at least when there was no showing of "substantial prejudice" resulting from the delay. Additionally, since the prisoner was already in a special housing unit at the time of the incident, which resulted in discipline for violent conduct, threats, and other rule violations, the seven-day procedural rule did not apply. The court also rejected the prisoner's argument that he was denied the right to present videotape evidence concerning the incident, as there was no record showing that any such videotape existed. Applewhite v. Goord, No. 500132, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 12462 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
Prisoner was not denied the right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing when he failed to list any desired witnesses on a hearing form, and the determination against him, concerning alleged trafficking in contraband (tobacco allegedly brought in by a visitor) was adequately supported by "some evidence." Jackson v. Wrigley, No. 07-1618, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27794 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was improperly disciplined for sending a copy of a letter to a prison internal affairs unit, in violation of his First Amendment rights, is rejected by appeals court. The letter sought information about how to pursue his claims in state court against a prison official. The official considered the letter to be a threat because he worked in the unit where the copy of the letter was sent. The appeals court ruled that prison officials did not act unreasonably in viewing the sending of the copy of the letter as a "veiled threat" against the official, or in seizing the prisoner's legal papers after he filed a prison grievance, which was an attempt to circulate a petition, in violation of prison rules. May v. Libby, No. 05-1473, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27796 (7th Cir.).
Disciplinary hearing during which a prisoner was found to have engaged in disruptive conduct, received money for the purpose of introducing contraband, and possessing a cell phone did not violate his due process rights. Despite the prisoner's claim that he was denied the right to call witnesses, he did call one witness and he failed to identify other witnesses that he was barred from calling. The hearing officer properly reviewed privately statements by other prisoners concerning a scheme to leave the prison camp and then return, due to their "sensitive nature," but the prisoner was provided with the factual asserts\ions in the documents. The weight of the evidence presented supported the disciplinary assertions. Redding v. Holt, No. 07-3397, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25464 (3rd Cir.).
A disciplinary notice accusing a prisoner of threatening and choking a victim while on work release was inadequate in that it failed to identify the victim, name any witnesses, or specify the date or location of the alleged assault, so that it did not allow the prisoner to know what evidence would be needed to refute the charge. Additionally, no reasons were provided as to why these specific facts were not included. Prison officials were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiff prisoner was entitled to summary judgment on his claim that he was denied due process, and that his work-release status was improperly lost as a result of the accusation. Dible v. Scholl, No. 07-1013, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25985 (8th Cir.).
When the chairman of a conduct adjustment board which conducted a disciplinary hearing was not involved in the case in an investigative capacity, but had observed some of the evidence before the hearing, this did not disqualify him from presiding. The hearing resulted in discipline of an inmate for being in possession of materials belonging to another prisoner, and the chairman had observed the inventorying of the contents of a garbage bag containing the materials, but did not personally examine the items or participate in the process. Reid v. Smith, No. 07-1208, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24321 (7th Cir.).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer a prisoner's lawsuit over two disciplinary decisions to another federal district, which would have cured jurisdictional defects in the case, when its "quick look" at the merits indicated that the prisoner had been given required due process in the two disciplinary hearings. In both cases he had received written notice of the charges more than a day before hearing, had an opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, and there was "some evidence" to support the decisions reached. Queen v. Nalley, No. 07-3163, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24086 (10th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds the dismissal of a prisoner's claim that it violated his constitutional due process rights to classify him as a sex offender based on a prison disciplinary conviction without a further proceeding. The prisoner received all the due process required at his disciplinary hearing, so that his classification as a sex offender was an acceptable automatic consequence of his disciplinary conviction. The only additional due process he was entitled to was the receipt of notification of his sex offender classification. Mariani v. Stommel, No. 07-1068, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24256 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner subjected to discipline for allegedly making and providing a weapon to another inmate had no due process right to know the identity of confidential informants regarding the incident or to obtain a copy of confidential reports. Lewis v. Moore, No. CV 04-3055, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61667 (D. Ariz.).
Discipline of prisoner for unauthorized possession of cellular phone was adequately supported by "some evidence" after it was found in a cooler with his prison number and nickname on it. Antonakeas v. Sherman, No. 06-5003, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20089 (3rd Cir.).
Notice of the potential penalties a prisoner faces in a disciplinary hearing is not a due process requirement. Prisoner found guilty of fighting with another inmate, who was fined and lost some good time credit received sufficient due process since he was given notice of the hearing, the chance to defend himself, and a written statement of the evidence relied on for the disciplinary determination. White v. Golder, No. 07-1114, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19437 (10th Cir.).
Federal Bureau of Prisons regulation, contained in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 541.13, tbl. 3, Code 203, prohibiting threats of bodily harm to any person is not void for vagueness. A disciplinary hearing properly found that the prisoner violated the regulation by approaching the female unit manager with a "loud and boisterous" tone of voice, and had "stepped towards her" every time he spoke. This determination could properly rely on the prisoner's mannerisms, movements, size, and tone of voice. The appeals court noted that prison regulations are not judged on the same strict standards as criminal statutes, and found that the prisoner should have known that he was violating the disciplinary rules, given his actions and size. Estrada v. Williamson, No. 06-3278, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16691 (3rd Cir.).
While the prisoner claimed that he had not received sufficient notice of a disciplinary hearing or an opportunity to be heard, his own assertions did indicate that he received a notice prior to the hearing, and did receive a hearing. The trial court further held that the plaintiff had no constitutionally protected liberty interest to be free from prison officials' alleged "scheme" to conduct what the prisoner called an "unwarranted" hearing. Canosa v. Condon, No. 05-00791, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39865 (D. Hawaii).
A prisoner's claim challenging the due process adequacy of Oklahoma state prison disciplinary hearings was barred because he failed to pursue avenues available under Oklahoma law in state court to have his due process claims reviewed. An Oklahoma state law requires state courts to determine whether prisoners are provided with constitutionally required due process by prison officials, provided that the prisoner asks the court to do so within 90 days of his notification of the Department of Corrections' final decision in his case. The statute applies to disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the taking away of earned good behavior credits. Magar v. Parker, No. 06-6369, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14371 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner subjected to a disallowance of good time credit and a period of disciplinary segregation after a disciplinary hearing found him guilty of fighting with another inmate failed to show that the hearing officer failed to consider all of the evidence presented, or that the minimal due process required was not provided. Kenney v. Barron, No. 06-16663, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14988 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner disciplined for engaging in a prohibited third party telephone call at a New Jersey prison had sufficient written material both from that facility and from a Pennsylvania prison at which he had previously been housed, to give him notice that the call he made was forbidden. The use of the Pennsylvania prison's handbook at the disciplinary hearing, rather than the New Jersey prison's handbook, did not violate his due process rights. Further, the hearing officer wrote a detailed report stating the evidence relied on and the reasons for the discipline. Cook v. Warden, Fort Dix Correctional Institution, No. 06-1054, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14772 (3rd Cir.).
The plaintiff prisoner failed to prove his claims that prison officials maliciously conspired to concoct a misconduct charge, which was used to discipline him, and violated his due process rights in reducing his security classification, or in connection with the disciplinary hearing itself. Cardoso v. Calbone, No. 06-6266 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14342 (10th Cir.).
New York correctional employees were entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit by a prisoner claiming that his due process rights were violated when they failed to personally interview two witnesses he sought to call at his disciplinary hearing, but who refused to testify. The disciplinary proceeding involved his alleged refusal to properly submit an unadulterated urine specimen as part of an ordered drug test. There was no requirement to call the witnesses, as the defendants reasonably believed, relying on other staff members, that it would be "futile" to do so. Additionally, even if their actions were found to violate the prisoner's rights, such rights were not clearly established by prior case law, so that the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. Hill v. Selsky, No. 06-CV-6043, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33455 (W.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner's claim that correctional employees used excessive force against him was rejected after he failed to refute the evidence presented by the defendants that the back pain he experienced was the result of a medical condition--a degenerative disc disease he suffers from, rather being caused a defendant's conduct. Appeals court also upholds rejection of claims for denial of access to the courts and for purported due process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing in which the prisoner was found not guilty of battery. Billups v. Hammon, No. 06-55274, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12672 (9th Cir.).
An Ohio state statute allowing correctional officials to designate "at least" one tobacco-free housing area within a correctional facility also allowed them to declare the entire facility tobacco-free. The defendants also had authority to discipline the plaintiff prisoner for violating a ban on smoking, so doing so did not constitute impermissible "harassment" or "retaliation." Call v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Corrections, No. 06AP-1057, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 2451 (10th Dist, Franklin County).
An Indiana prisoner did not have a substantive due process right to use violence to defend another prisoner which could be asserted in a prison disciplinary hearing. Federal appeals court rejects challenge to sanctions imposed by a prison's Conduct Adjustment Board after the plaintiff prisoner hit another inmate with a cane in an attempt to stop that inmate from stabbing a third prisoner. The plaintiff also failed to show a violation of his procedural due process rights. The plaintiff himself admitted his actions, and the Board had not disputed that he may have done so to protect another prisoner, but instead determined that punishment was still required. Additionally, his rights were not violated when the Board denied him access to a surveillance video of the incident, to live witnesses, or to prison medical records, given that the Board had accepted the prisoner's own version of the events, so that such evidence would not add anything to his defense, but instead would be merely repetitive of his own account. Scruggs v. Jordan, No. 05-4238, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10790 (7th Cir.).
While sufficient evidence existed to support discipline of a prisoner for possessing drug paraphernalia, the disciplinary hearing officer's refusal of the inmate's request that he review a videotape of the incident in which he allegedly assaulted another prisoner to see if he acted in self-defense was erroneous. The federal appeals court ordered further proceedings in the trial court to decide whether or not that error was harmless. Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3315, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12038 (10th Cir.).
Discipline of prisoner for alleged misuse of authorized medication resulting in a fellow inmate overdosing was adequately supported by "some evidence," when the hearing officer relied upon statements by an investigating officer, an intelligence officer, and the inmate's own admissions concerning the incident. The appeals court also found that there was no unjustified delay in notifying the prisoner of the charge against him, even if he did not receive notification of the charge within 24 hours after an investigation began, which he argued was required by 28 C.F.R. Sec. 541.15(a). Barner v. Williamson, No. 06-3351, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12399 (3rd Cir.).
Former pretrial detainee did not show that his constitutional rights were violated when jail officials allegedly would not allow him to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing, when he failed to show that he had any witnesses with relevant information that he tried to call. Prisoners do not have a right to call witnesses who would present repetitive or irrelevant evidence, so the plaintiff showed no violation of his due process rights. Jackson v. Everett, No. 06-2809, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9869 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner's conviction of violation of a disciplinary rule, specifically of forging certificates showing that he had completed aggression replacement training, was supported by substantial evidence, including the documents, a misbehavior report, and testimony by investigating officers. The hearing officer's own analysis and finding of similarities between the certificates and the prisoner's handwriting samples were enough to uphold the conviction, and the failure to present a comparison by a handwriting expert did not alter the result. The court also ruled that the disciplinary hearing was commenced in a timely manner under New York law. Agosto v. Selsky, No. 501136, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 5108 (3rd Dept.).
When the record showed that there was an evidentiary basis for each disciplinary charge brought against an inmate, the prisoner failed to show that the charges had been improperly brought against him in retaliation for his prior filing of grievances and appeals. Young v. Beard, No. 06-3621, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6559 (3rd Cir.).
Disciplinary determination against prisoner for conspiracy to possess alcohol and drugs, and for telephone abuse had to be annulled without requiring a new hearing, based on an unexplained delay of between seven and 21 months between the commission of the alleged acts and the issuance of the misbehavior report. This delay, the court found, violated the prisoner's due process rights, and the court ordered the expungement from the prisoner's record of all references to the charges made. Loret v. Goord, No. 280 TP 06-03014, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 3470 (4th Dept.).
Disciplinary proceeding properly imposed loss of good-time credits on prisoner after being presented "some evidence" sufficient to find that he had set fire to his prison cell. Tucker v. Wiley, No. 06-1415, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3063 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly found guilty of violating a prison rule after a law library clerk who retrieved a book from the prisoner's cell found a folder inside the book containing legal work from another inmate and a letter to the plaintiff prisoner describing the documents found in the folder. A two-week delay in writing up a misbehavior report for disciplinary purposes was not a violation of the prisoner's rights when the report's author had to first determine that the conduct complained of had not already been charged in prior proceedings concerning giving unauthorized legal assistance. Chaney v. Selsky, No. 500465, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 1964 (3rd Dept.). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction of prisoner for violating prison rules by writing a sexually explicit letter to a corrections counselor was supported by substantial evidence, including the letter itself, other samples of the prisoner's handwriting, a misbehavior report, and the testimony of the corrections officer who wrote the report. Expert witness testimony was not required to conclude that the handwriting on the letter was that of the prisoner, as this could be assessed by the hearing officers. Matter of Hood v. Goord, #98720, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 247 (3rd Dept.). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that a jail violated his right to due process by revoking certain good-time credits without providing him with an adequate disciplinary hearing was properly awarded only $1 in nominal damages when he failed to show he suffered any actual damages, and the loss of the good time credits did not actually lengthen his incarceration, since he had to served a longer sentence in another state as soon as he was released from an Illinois prison. Shigemura v. Duft, No. 06-1258, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31668 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
Upholding disciplinary action against a prisoner for possession of a glass shank, a metal shank, and a metal rod found among his property, an intermediate appeals court ruled that an officer's misbehavior report, along with other testimony, was sufficient to provide substantial evidence of guilt. Any conflict between the testimony of the prisoner and the officers was merely a question of credibility for the hearing officer to determine, and the prisoner failed to show any bias on the part of the hearing officer. Abdullah v. Goord, No. 500397, 2007 N.Y. App. Lexis 12 (3rd Dept.). [N/R]
A notice of a disciplinary proceeding which had no information other than that the prisoner was being charged with violation of two prison rules, and which did not identify a location, a time, or a victim of the supposed offense was "clearly" insufficient to satisfy due process requirements. The plaintiff prisoner was therefore entitled to summary judgment on his constitutional due process claim. Dible v. Scholl, No. C05-4089, 2006 U.S. Dist. lexis 92207 (N.D. Iowa). [N/R]
Prisoner's six-month disciplinary confinement did not violate a constitutionally protected interest, so that he could not obtain damages on his claim that a search of his cell, which resulted in finding of a homemade knife, and subsequent discipline, was retaliatory for his having filed a grievance, or that his disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights. McKeithan v. Jones, No. 05-2238, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 329 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly subjected to discipline for obtaining a private investigator to subject an off-duty prison staff member to surveillance. The disciplinary determination was adequately supported by some evidence, and physical evidence corroborated the confidential information relied on by the hearing officer, supporting its reliability. Funtanilla v. Pliler, No. 04-16983, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30542 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
Disciplinary decision that prisoner was guilty of conspiring to bring drugs into prison and making a prohibited third-party phone call using another inmate's I.D. number is reversed based on hearing officer's error in denying the prisoner's request to have two inmates testify who allegedly would have supported his contention that he did not make the calls at issue. Since the drug/smuggling charges were based on the content of the phone calls, such testimony would have, if offered and believed, refuted all of the charges against the prisoner. The hearing officer also improperly denied the prisoner's request that the person caught smuggling drugs into the facility testify in the hearing, without a stated reason for doing so. Caldwell v. Goord, No. 99630, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 14109 (3rd Dept.). [N/R]
Criminal prosecution of prisoner for attempting to promote prison contraband was not barred by a prior prison disciplinary proceeding involving the same incident finding him not guilty of assault and possession of a weapon. The New York Department of Correctional Services, which prosecuted the disciplinary charges against the prisoner, was not a representative of the People of the State of New York for purposes of prosecution, and the disciplinary proceedings results, therefore, did not have any impact on the ability to pursue the criminal charges. People v. Lowe, No. 100023, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 13531 (A.D. 3d Dept.). [N/R]
Prisoner's rights were not violated by failure to have requested witness testify at disciplinary hearing when the witness was then medically unable to do so, and when the prisoner failed to show that his testimony would have been helpful to his case. Additionally, the prisoner basically admitted that he had been involved in the assault which was the subject of the disciplinary hearing. Speller v. Rios, No. 06-1159, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25628 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
Time limits in New York regulations for holding disciplinary hearing were not mandatory, and the prisoner failed to show that a delay caused any prejudice to him in a hearing finding him guilty of assaulting prison staff members and violent conduct in an incident in which he allegedly swung a food transport cart at the prison's head cook during an argument. Bilbrew v. Goord, #99635, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 12495 (A.D. 3rd Dept.). [N/R]
Federal appeals court states that prison disciplinary panels "are not courts," and are not entitled to "deference" on their factual findings when a prisoner presents conflicting evidence. Johnson v. Finnan, No. 06-1509 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27166 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Dec]
Prisoner subjected to disciplinary punishments, some of which extend the duration of his confinement, and some which do not, may pursue federal civil rights lawsuit over those which do not, even though the disciplinary determination has not been set aside. The plaintiff must, however, then forgo any possible future claim as to those sanctions which do extend the duration of his confinement. Peralta v. Vasquez, No. 04-2822, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25697 (2d Cir.). [2006 JB Dec]
Prisoner found guilty of disciplinary infractions was not improperly denied the right to call witnesses at his hearing when he was not able to accurately identify the other prisoner he wished to call. Folk v. Goord, 814 N.Y.S.2d 811 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner found guilty of violating prison rules was given adequate assistance by a prison employee at his disciplinary hearing. Even though the employee initially did not give the prisoner all the information he asked for in relation to the hearing, the hearing officer adjourned the hearing to allow the employee to gather the information and provide it to the prisoner, alleviating any problem. James v. Goord, 812 N.Y.S.2d 713 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Refusal of hearing officer to adjourn disciplinary hearing did not violate a prisoner's due process rights. The prisoner argued that such an adjournment was needed because a correctional officer stated during his testimony that the disciplinary report was inaccurate about the time of the incident in question, but that difference only involved 90 minutes, and the prisoner still had adequate notice of the date and details of the alleged misconduct. Wright v. Dixon, No. 05-CV-60521, 409 F. Supp. 2d 210 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Disciplinary determination that prisoner violated a disciplinary rule prohibiting sending outgoing mail containing material for persons other than the addressee on the envelope overturned when there was no evidence in the record that the prison superintendent had authorized the opening and reading of his mail. Under a New York administrative regulation, such a mail watch is permitted when the superintendent of a facility reasonably believes that the mail may threaten institutional safety or security or the safety of any person. Keesh v. Smith, No. 99196, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 11510 (3rd Dept.). [N/R]
Polygraph testing of confidential informants is not required by due process in prison disciplinary hearings. Torres v. Walker, No. 4-05-0813, 848 N.E.2d 156 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2006). [N/R]
Accusations against prisoner of providing unauthorized legal assistance and possessing unauthorized information about fellow inmate's crimes were not supported by the evidence when legal documents in his possession predated his removal from his job as a prison law library clerk or related to information about his co-defendant which he was permitted to possess. The evidence did, however, support a finding that he had refused a direct order to delete unauthorized material from his computer disks when ordered to do so. Deoleo v. Selsky, 814 N.Y.S.2d 798 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Determination that prisoner engaged in unauthorized organizational activities in violation of prison rules was supported by evidence of misbehavior report and testimony of correctional sergeant as well as testimony of another inmate who stated that the prisoner was a gang member. Hines v. Goord, 814 N.Y.S.2d 807 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights claim arguing that his due process rights were violated in a disciplinary proceeding because he was not provided with copies of reports or statements made against him, since he failed to show that his disciplinary conviction had previously been invalidated. Harper v. Clarke, No. A-04-461, 713 N.W.2d 502 (Neb. App. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to assert viable federal civil rights claim for denial of due process in his loss of good time credits based on recommendation of a single hearing officer rather than a disciplinary committee. Hornsby v. Jones, No. 05-5201, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16275 (10th Cir.). [2006 JP Oct]
Disciplinary determination that prisoner violated rules against smuggling and providing unauthorized legal assistance to other prisoners was supported by substantial evidence when examination of an outgoing letter to his father revealed material concerning the legal proceeding of another inmate at a different facility. Hynes v. Goord, 817 N.Y.S.2d 168 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner could be disciplined for possessing contraband and a tattoo machine despite his lack of exclusive access to the area where these items were found. When the items were found behind his locker and under his bed, there was a reasonable inference that he had access to them, and that they were in his control. Lopez v. Selsky, 813 N.Y.S.2d 814 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Substantial evidence supported discipline of prisoner for refusing to comply with a urinalysis testing program. His claim that his medication and medical problems prevented him from providing a urine sample adequate for the test was refuted by testimony from a doctor familiar with his medication and medical history. Moreno v. Goord, 817 N.Y.S.2d 173 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2006). [N/R]
A review of a prisoner's medical records during disciplinary proceedings did not violate his privacy rights when the prisoner put his diabetic medical condition at issue in presenting his defense to a charge that his urinalysis had come back positive for alcohol use. Stephens v. Chairman Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, No. 04-4344, 173 Fed. Appx. 964 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Mere fact that a prisoner obtained the reversal of a prior disciplinary sanction imposed on him by a hearing officer was insufficient, standing alone, to show that the hearing officer acted for retaliatory purposes in imposing discipline on him again four months later, particularly when the officer acquitted him of two of the three charges against him, and the prisoner himself admitted he was guilty of the third charge. Mitchell v. Senkowski, #04-1792, 158 Fed. Appx. 346 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
A prisoner did not suffer any violation of due process due to the alleged denial of his request to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing when his conviction was subsequently overturned during the appeals process and his good time credits were restored, so that any deprivation of procedural rights was remedied by the appeals process. Baker v. Rexroad, No. 04-16594, 159 Fed. Appx. 61 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing's determination that a prisoner had lied about a correctional officer assaulting him, in violation of prison rules, was supported by substantial evidence, including medical records showing no indication that the inmate had been assaulted, or suffered the injuries he claimed. Royster v. Goord, 810 N.Y.S.2d 212 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly found guilty of disciplinary charges of being in possession of a weapon, a gun, while out on temporary work release program. Charges were supported by substantial evidence, and hearing officer made an adequate assessment of the reliability of a confidential source who provided information about the incident. Johnson v. Goord, 810 N.Y.S.2d 255 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner claiming that he was improperly retaliated against by being falsely disciplined for having written a letter and filed a prior lawsuit against prison staff members was not required to "establish" either the legal or factual elements of his claim in his complaint, but merely say enough to provide the defendants with adequate notice of his claim. Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit was not barred by finding, by prison disciplinary board, that his statements in his prior letter and lawsuit were false. Simpson v. Nickel, No. 05-4686, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006). [2006 JB Aug]
In a disciplinary proceeding concerning a prisoner's possession of purportedly religious documents found to be subversive, the notice provided to the prisoner was adequate to give him adequate due process notice despite failing to identify the specific documents which had been confiscated. The number of documents seized were not so many that the inmate would not have known that the hearing officer would examine all of them in determining guilt or innocence of the charges. Appeals court holds, however, that genuine issues concerning whether the failure to disclose the documents and confidential source information to the prisoner was justified barred summary judgment against him on his due process claim, requiring further proceedings. Samuels v. Selsky, No. 04-0097, 166 Fed. Appx. 552 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that facility violated a state statute requiring that a discipline report be written within 48 hours of an incident, even if true, did not show a violation of his constitutional due process right to fundamental fairness in his disciplinary hearing. Sufficient evidence supported his conviction for possession of contraband, even though it was not found with him, when the contraband was marked with florescent dust, and the prisoner was found to have some of the dust on his hands. Dawson v. Bruce, No. 95,032, 134 P.3d 14 (Kan. App. 2006). [N/R]
New prison disciplinary rules, which reclassified some previously minor violations to now result in a loss of good time, did not constitute an unconstitutional retroactive enhancement of punishment under the "ex post facto" clauses of either the U.S. Constitution or North Carolina state Constitution, and the application of the new rules did not violate a prisoner's due process rights. Smith v. Beck, No. COA05-561, 627 S.E.2d 284 (N.C. App. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's disciplinary conviction for grabbing the breast of a female nurse was supported by sufficient evidence, and the rule prohibiting such conduct was clear enough to give him notice that such conduct was prohibited. Snider v. Fox, No. 32767, 627 S.E.2d 353 (W. Va. 2006). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing officer did not violate rights of Spanish-speaking prisoner by failing to provide him with an interpreter, when it was previously determined that he was also fluent in English. Prisoner's insistence on conversing in Spanish at hearing, after being warned not to do so, was a legitimate reason to remove him from the hearing, and there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty of refusing to obey a direct order by failing to comply with nurse's instruction to lift his tongue to confirm that he had swallowed his medication. Encarnacion v. Goord, 811 N.Y.S.2d 809 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
While it was a mistake to deny inmate's request to call as a witness a correctional officer present during an incident for which the inmate was charged with inciting to riot, this error was harmless when his testimony would not have altered the resulting imposition of punishment. Grossman v. Bruce, No. 05-3155 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 11194 (10th Cir.). [2006 JB Jun]
Substantial evidence, including a misbehavior report, testimony by the author of the report, and the inmate's own admission that he had another prisoner's legal papers, supported a disciplinary determination that the inmate was guilty of the unauthorized exchange of property. Kalwasinski v. Goord, 810 N.Y.S.2d 224 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
The allegation that a prison hearing officer violated Kansas state Department of Corrections procedural regulations was insufficient, by itself, to state a constitutional claim for violation of the right to fundamental fairness of a disciplinary proceeding. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support the determination that prisoner was guilty of introducing contraband into the facility and violated rules concerning telephone access. Starr v. Bruce, No. 94,061, 129 P.3d 583 (Kan. App. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's right to call witnesses in disciplinary proceeding was violated, requiring the setting aside of the finding that he was guilty of violating disciplinary rules. Efforts made to either secure the testimony of a requested inmate witness or else determine his reasons for refusing to testify were inadequate. The requested witness did not sign a form refusing to testify, and a prison employee who sought to obtain the witness's testimony did not testify at the hearing concerning the circumstances of the witness's refusal or any investigation into the reason for the refusal. Crosby v. Selsky, 807 N.Y.S.2d 666 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Substantial evidence supported a disciplinary determination that a prisoner had violated rules against drug use. Court rejects argument that positive urinalysis drug test results were caused by "residual traces" of earlier drug use for which he had already been disciplined, especially since the prisoner himself admitted that he had used marijuana at some time after the prior urine sample was collected. Callender v. Goord, 809 N.Y.S.2d 218 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing determinations that prisoner was guilty of violating prison rules against possession of a weapon and failing to comply with a frisk search were supported by substantial evidence, including a written misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing. Hemphill v. Selsky, 808 N.Y.S.2d 503 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing's determination that prisoner was guilty of violating prison rules against fighting with other inmates was adequately supported by a misbehavior report and the testimony of the corrections officer who prepared it and witnessed the fight. The prisoner's argument that he was not the person shown on a videotape of the incident, and that the whole thing was a case of mistaken identity was an issue of credibility for the hearing officer to determine. Williams v. Goord, 805 N.Y.S.2d 438 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
The fact that there were substantial deletions in the copy of the incident report furnished to the prisoner at a prison disciplinary hearing did not violate his right to receive relevant evidence, since an examination of a more complete copy of the report showed that it did not contain anything which would support his defense or exonerate him of the charges. Determination that prisoner was guilty of assaulting another inmate and making false statements to an officer were supported by substantial evidence. Seymour v. Goord, 804 N.Y.S.2d 498 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction of prisoner for assault on an officer with a "non-serious injury" resulting, causing him to lose 180 days of good time credits, was constitutionally invalid in violation of due process where there was no evidence that the officer suffered any injury at all during the incident. Morgan v. Dretke, No. 04-20254, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 27758 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Feb]
Alleged procedural defects in prison disciplinary process which resulted in prisoner's loss of commissary privileges could not be the basis for the a constitutional due process claim. Prisoner did not have a protected liberty interest against the loss of such privileges. Bridges v. Lee, No. 04-60508, 124 Fed. Appx. 225 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was not denied the right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing when he "acquiesced" in one witness's refusal to testify and when attempts to contact his wife, who he had requested as a witness, were unsuccessful. Otero v. Goord, 792 N.Y.S.2d 728 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Hearing officer was justified in carrying out a disciplinary hearing without the charged prisoner when he was informed that the prisoner refused to either attend or sign a written waiver, and had been told of the possible consequences of his actions. Abbas v. Selsky, 802 N.Y.S.2d 798 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's compliance with an officer's second order to give him some paper towels did not alter evidence showing that he was guilty of violating prison rules by refusing the officer's first direct order. Discipline imposed on prisoner was supported by substantial evidence, including a misbehavior report and the testimony of the officer. Salahuddin v. Selsky, 802 N.Y.S.2d 262 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was not denied adequate legal assistance at prison disciplinary hearing which found him guilty of rule violations arising out of a urine sample that tested positive for opiates. The prisoner was allowed the assistance of a prison teacher at the hearing, and prisoner made an explicit statement at the hearing that he was satisfied with this assistance. The determination of the hearing was adequately supported by some evidence of the prisoner's guilt. Alicea v. Howell, No. 03-CV-65071, 387 F. Supp. 2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's rights were violated when a disciplinary misconduct conviction, found to be supported by "no evidence," caused him to be demoted to a status in which he could not earn credits towards early release. Wilson v. Jones, No. 02-6384, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26655 (10th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
Discovery of seven-inch shank in inmate's cell under mattress provided some evidence, which was sufficient to comply with due process required to support disciplinary conviction for possession of dangerous contraband. Quintanilla v. O'Brien, No. 04-3031, 127 Fed. Appx. 887 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's disciplinary conviction of harassing a prison employee and committing a sexual offense in violation of prison rules was supported by substantial evidence, including a misbehavior rule, the testimony of the correctional officer who wrote it, and the testimony of the prison employee the prisoner harassed, as well as a videotape of the incident at issue. Porter v. Goord, 801 N.Y.S.2d 634 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
New York prisoner's complaint adequately claimed personal involvement of the Commissioner of the state's Department of Correctional Services in failing to act on information that unconstitutional practices were occurring in the handling of appeals prisoner disciplinary determinations to pursue federal civil rights claim against him personally. The prisoner claimed that the department had a policy or custom of upholding constitutionally defective disciplinary determinations, and then reversing those affirmances if the prisoner filed a state court lawsuit. He also contended that the Commissioner and his deputy created this policy, and failed to provide adequate training and supervision for employees of the Department who were in charge of disciplinary hearings. James v. Aidala, No. 04-CV-62101, 389 F. Supp. 2d 451 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
A Minnesota prisoner had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his scheduled supervised release date, entitling him to procedural due process before that date was extended as the result of a prison disciplinary proceeding. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court of Minnesota holds, the use of a "some evidence" standard was inappropriate and the disciplinary hearing was required to establish facts constituting a disciplinary offense by a "preponderance of the evidence." Carrillo v. Fabrian, No. A03-1663, 701 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 2005). [N/R]
Oklahoma prisoner failed to show that he had been disciplined without due process of law, as he was provided with written notice of the charges against him, an opportunity to present witness and a defense, and a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. The discipline imposed on him was supported by "some evidence," which was constitutionally adequate. Davis v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 04-7048, 131 Fed. Appx. 127 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Determination that prisoner was guilty of using a controlled substance was supported by substantial evidence, including a misbehavior report, the testimony of the correctional officer who prepared it, and positive urinalysis test results. Wigfall v. Goord, 798 N.Y.S.2d 582 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who left a urinalysis testing area was properly found guilty of violating drug testing procedures and disobeying a direct order. The fact that a regulation allowed a prisoner who could not immediately provide a urine sample in response to an order to do so within three hours did not alter the result, since the discipline was not imposed on the basis of his inability to immediately produce a sample, but rather on his decision, after being told of the consequences, of leaving the area before the three hour time period was expired. Brown v. Goord, 795 N.Y.S.2d 407 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was not prevented, at disciplinary proceeding concerning alleged drug use, from presenting evidence that the medication he was taking at the time caused a false positive urinalysis test result for THC metabolite. His disciplinary loss of good time credits therefore did not violate his right to due process. Perez v. McKean, No. 05-1034, 136 Fed. Appx. 542 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Hawaii prisoner was entitled to a hearing on his claim that he was unlawfully punished for assisting other prisoners with legal matters, Hawaii Supreme Court holds, noting that a prisoner may not be punished for assisting other prisoners in gaining "meaningful access" to the courts. Hutch v. State of Hawaii, No. 25711, 114 P.3d 917 (Hawaii 2005). [2005 JB Nov]
Refusal to allow inmate's cellmate to testify at his disciplinary hearing did not violate his due process rights when his statement was taken and made part of the record. The prisoner was able to call other witnesses, and the written statements from those who were unable to attend provided written statements. Vasquez v. Peterson, No. 05-6041, 139 Fed. Appx. 77 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Disciplinary decision finding New York prisoner guilty of exposing his private parts, harassing employees, engaging in violent conduct, making threats and disobeying orders was supported by substantial evidence, and his persistent disruptive behavior during the hearing justified his removal from it. Davis v. Goord, 799 N.Y.S. 2d 636 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction for making threats was adequately supported by both testimony and a tape recording of the prisoner's phone conversation with his stepmother asking her to send him a newspaper article identifying another prisoner as a confidential informant. Thomas v. Colorado Department of Corrections, No. 03CA0503, 117 P.3d 7 (Colo. App. 2004). [N/R]
Failure to allow prisoner information about correctional officers' physical condition or medical records in connection with disciplinary hearing against him, based on hearing officer's decision that doing so would compromise institutional security, did not deprive him of due process. The hearing concerned an altercation and the information the prisoner requested concerned the details of the officers' injuries during the incident. Withrow v. Goord, No. 03-CV-6284, 374 F. Supp. 2d 326 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly convicted of violating disciplinary rules against possession of contraband classified as a weapon, based on the finding, during a search of his cube of a folded can lid attached to a handle made of masking tape. Vines v. Goord, 798 N.Y.S.2d 526 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005) [N/R].
Prisoner had no right, under Indiana state law, to seek state court judicial review of prison discipline imposed against him, when prison disciplinary actions were specifically excluded from law providing for judicial review of an agency action. Blanck v. Ind. Dept. of Corr., No. 52S02-04-09-CV-405, 829 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2005). [N/R]
Determination that prisoner was guilty of failing to obey a direct order and refusing to comply with instructions concerning urinalysis drug testing procedures was supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of the correctional officers who reported the incident. Ruggiero v. Goord, 796 N.Y.S.2d 752 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's procedural due process rights were violated when he was denied access to a surveillance videotape that he contended showed that another prisoner put contraband in his cell. The tape was relevant to the disciplinary proceeding even if the images were not clear, and he was entitled to introduce it as evidence. At the same time, prison personnel did not "destroy" the tape to prevent him from using it as evidence, when the tapes were routinely recycled or reused if not requested for use within 30 days. Phelps v. Tucker, No. 3:04CV006, 370 F. Supp. 2d 792 (N.D. Ind. 2005). [N/R]
New York City correctional institution violated the due process rights of a pre-trial detainee in placing him in 23-hour per day in-cell lock-in for over 6 months, and failing to hold any hearing for at least eleven weeks on accusation that he was involved in a fatal assault on another inmate. Further, the detainee was never fully informed of his rights at the hearing finally conducted. People ex rel Furde v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Correction, 796 N.Y.S.2d 891 (Sup. Bronx County 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner did not have a due process right to have a chemical analysis done of the tobacco seized from his cell prior to a disciplinary proceeding for possessing contraband. Prison officials did not require the assistance of "a chemist," the court rules, in order to help decide whether what the guards found in the cell was tobacco. Burks-Bey v. Vannatta, #04-4025, 130 Fed. Appx. 46 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction of prisoner for alleged attempted assault on prison staff member was supported by "some evidence." Hearing officer's refusal to view a surveillance videotape taken during the incident did not violate the prisoner's due process rights when there was no indication that any portion of the videotape showed what happened inside the prisoner's cell, where the offense allegedly took place. Neal v. Casterline, No. 04-30909, 129 Fed. Appx. 113 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner stated a possible procedural due process claim by alleging that he was ousted from and denied assistance during one disciplinary hearing, denied a request to call expert witnesses in a second disciplinary hearing, and denied the opportunity to be present and to call two witnesses at a third disciplinary hearing. Chavis v. Zodlow, No. 04-0447, 128 Fed. Appx. 800 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was entitled to a judicial review of a disciplinary report concerning his alleged drug use after asserting that his urine sample was switched with that provided by his cell mate for purpose of the drug test, and providing affidavits concerning the alleged violation of the specimen collection and drug testing procedures. Henderson v. Crosby, No.2D04-1761, 891 So. 2nd 1180 (Fla. App. 2nd Dist. 2005). [N/R]
Correctional officer's testimony, together with misbehavior report, was sufficient to provide substantial evidence that inmate violated rules against possessing contraband and an altered item, a toothbrush with a piece of metal attached to its handle, measuring seven inches in length. Thomas v. Selsky, 779 N.Y.S.2d 850 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Testimony of civilian supervisor at prisoner's work assignment was properly excluded as irrelevant at his disciplinary hearing concerning charges of his improper possession of legal documents in the prison's industrial area. Supervisor had no authority to grant prisoner permission to violate the rule prohibiting bringing such materials into the work area, and their understanding of a legal memorandum distributed to them concerning the rule would not have any bearing on whether or not the prisoner was guilty of a rule infraction. Koehl v. Senkowski, 779 N.Y.S.2d 851 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
The prisoner's own testimony at his disciplinary hearing, together with a misbehavior report, provided substantial evidence supporting a finding of guilt on charges of possessing contraband, including materials concerning how to construct explosives. Towles v. Selsky, 783 N.Y.S.2d 431 (A.D. Dept. 3, 2004). [N/R]
A disciplinary determination that a prisoner violated rules against the use of controlled substances was supported by substantial evidence including a misbehavior report and a positive urinalysis test. The record showed that the chain of custody of the urine sample was maintained properly. Odome v. Goord, 779 N.Y.S.2d 603 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Inmate assigned to work as an audiovisual technician was properly disciplined for disobeying a direct order when he refused to select a videotaped movie to play from those available when a problem arose with the movie scheduled to be shown. Bragg v. Selsky, 791 N.Y.S.2d 706 (A.D. Dept. 3 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was not denied due process when he was excluded from his disciplinary hearing after having previously waived his right to be present. Once he made a valid waiver, the disciplinary committee was not required to allow him to change his mind. Louis v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, No. A-03-868, 687 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. App. 2004). [N/R]
A misbehavior report charging an inmate with harassment and making threats was not invalid for use in a disciplinary proceeding because it omitted specific dates and times or endorsements by particular inmates, when the report was the result of an ongoing investigation and the identity of the informant inmates could not be revealed. Blackwell v. Goord, 784 N.Y.S.2d 244 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who repeatedly refused to comply with a prison rule concerning storage of his personal property when he left his cell was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he missed 75 showers and between 300-350 meals in an 18-month period as a consequence of his defiance. Appeals court reasoned that the prisoner punished himself, knowing that the consequence of failing to comply with the rule, which he did not challenge the validity of, was being barred from leaving his cell to take showers or go to the cafeteria. Rodriguez v. Briley, No. 04-1554, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 6152 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Disciplinary hearing's finding that prisoner was guilty of possessing or introducing a weapon into a correctional facility could not be upheld on appeal when the hearing officer failed to explain why he found information provided by a confidential informant, the only evidence linking the prisoner to an assault, credible and reliable. The officer failed to comply with procedural safeguards in the administrative code requiring a written statement summarizing his reasons for relying on confidential information. Johnson v. Department of Corrections, 867 A.2d 1232 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005). [N/R]
Mere fact that a misbehavior report failed to indicate the specific date and time that the prisoner was alleged to have offered to provide stolen Social Security numbers to other inmates did not make it inadequate to provide notice to him of the offense with which he was charged. Disciplinary determination of guilt on the charges upheld, based on the report and on hearing testimony establishing that the incident occurred approximately two weeks before the writing of the report. Fayton v. Goord, 792 N.Y.S.2d 259 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Texas prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights claim alleging that he had been wrongfully convicted in a prison disciplinary hearing, in the absence of first having had that conviction expunged, reversed, or set aside, pursuant to the principles set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Williams v. Cleer, No. 04-20520, 123 Fed. Appx. 591 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Correctional officials acted properly in imposing discipline on prisoner who refused to obey order to take TB test on religious grounds. Detecting latent TB to prevent its spread was a legitimate penological interest and the discipline imposed was reasonably related to serving that interest. Cannon v. Mote, No. 4-04-0222, 2005 Ill. App. Lexis 212 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Prison officials could not punish an inmate for writing a letter to a private company informing them of what he believed to be an illegal program planned at the prison which would damage its business as a supplier to the facility. The statements, while critical or unflattering, did not damage institutional security, and punishing him for their content would violate the First Amendment. Gandy v. Ortiz, No. 04-1225, 122 Fed. Appx. 421 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit challenging his discipline as a violation of his First Amendment rights should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Federal appeals court rules that he did exhaust his administrative remedies when his appeal of his denied grievance was rejected as untimely. The Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement, the court holds, does not bar consideration of a prisoner's claims when his administrative appeal was denied on state law procedural grounds. Ngo v. Woodford, No. 03-16042, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4809 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Disciplinary conviction of prisoner for the unauthorized use of controlled substances was sufficiently supported by correctional officer's testimony that he collected prisoner's urine sample and kept the sample secured and in his possession, preserving the chain of custody prior to testing. Saif'Ul'Bait v. Goord, 788 N.Y.S.2d 712 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2005). [N/R]
A disciplinary rule which prohibits prisoners from leading or participating in work-stoppages, sit-ins, or other actions deemed detrimental to institutional order was not improperly vague when used to punish prisoner who orchestrated a protest over some inmates being prevented from going to a religious service. Garrett v. Goord, 788 N.Y.S.2d 461 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005).[N/R]
Prisoner's due process rights were not violated by refusal to allow testimony, at his disciplinary hearing, about why another prisoner sent money to the prisoner's accomplice, when this would be irrelevant to the charge that he attempted to "traffic" with prison staff members by offering a guard $250 to bring him tobacco, alcohol, and other contraband. Thomas v. McBride, No. 04-1810, 118 Fed. Appx. 977 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Misbehavior report concerning inmate's statements was insufficient to constitute substantial evidence of his violation of a rule prohibiting making threats, because whether the inmate said that there would be "serious bloodshed," or merely "serious problems" if his cellmate was not removed, this was not specific enough to constitute a threat. There was no evidence to refute the prisoner's assertion that he merely intended his statement as a plea for assistance, and that the statement did not indicate that he would be the one causing any harm. Allen v. Goord, 788 N.Y.S.2d 511 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Wisconsin statute which limits review by that state's courts of disciplinary proceedings against Wisconsin inmates confined in other states did not violate equal protection of law. Wisconsin court therefore properly refused to review disciplinary proceeding against Wisconsin prisoner confined in Minnesota when he failed to seek judicial review in Minnesota or to show that judicial review was unavailable in Minnesota. State ex rel. Myers v. Swenson, No. 03-2406, 691 N.W.2d 357 (Wis. App. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing's determination that a prisoner was guilty of violating prison rules against possession of a weapon and altering an authorized item was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the finding of a weapon in an area in the prisoner's control, a misbehavior report which stated that a metal nail file imbedded in a pen was found in his locker, and a picture of the allegedly altered pen. Charles v. Selsky, 785 N.Y.S.2d 798 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prison guard did not violate a Pennsylvania prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights by allegedly "blowing kisses" at him. While the prisoner claimed that this made him "fearful" of a future potential sexual assault, such conduct, while "unprofessional" did not state a claim for violation of federal civil rights. Prison psychiatrist had a clear obligation to report the prisoner's alleged subsequent threats against the guard, and was not required to give him Miranda warnings before discussing the incidents with him. The prisoner's statements to the psychiatrist were therefore admissible in subsequent prison disciplinary proceedings against him. Burkholder v. Newton, 116 Fed. Appx. 358 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prison rule prohibiting the spreading of "rumors" about prison staff members was unconstitutionally vague and was improperly used to punish a prisoner for communicating the contents of his grievance to his mother, who subsequently advertised its contents on the Internet in order to seek legal counsel for him. Cassels v. Stalder, No. CIV.A.03-0709-D-M2, 342 F. Supp. 2d 555 (M.D. La. 2004). [2005 JB Mar]
Mere testimony by correctional officer in a prison disciplinary proceeding that a plastic bag with a green leafy substance found during another officer's pat down search of the prisoner contained marijuana was insufficient to support a determination of guilt. While scientific testing of the substance was not required to meet the "some evidence" standard applicable in a prison disciplinary proceeding, the officer's "mere conclusion" that the substance was drugs was inadequate, and there was no evidence about the qualifications of either officer to identify marijuana. Bryant v. State, 884 So.2d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). [N/R]
A finding that a prisoner was guilty of assaulting another inmate and possessing a weapon was adequately supported by "substantial evidence" in an incident in which he allegedly cut the other prisoner with a sharp object. The disciplinary finding was supported by testimony from correctional officers involved in a frisk of the prisoner, the testimony of a confidential informant, and an incident report. Brown v. Goord, 783 N.Y.S.2d 151 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction of prisoner for violating prison rules by writing to his father in violation of a judicial order of protection was adequately supported by evidence including two letters authored by the prisoner and addressed to the father's residence. Goldberg v. Goord, 783 N.Y.S.2d 157 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing finding that a prisoner was guilty of violating rules against violent conduct, smuggling, refusing a direct order and failure to comply with frisk procedures when he attempted to flee officer who observed him with what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette was supported by substantial evidence, including a detailed misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing. Roman v. Goord, 783 N.Y.S.2d 150 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner formally charged in disciplinary proceeding of attempted intimidation did not have a due process right to a separate notice of lesser included disciplinary charges of profanity, vulgarity, or insolence to a prison staff member before being found guilty and punished for these lesser included offenses. The notice received adequately informed the prisoner of the facts underlying the alleged incident. Federal appeals court also holds that the use of evidence of past rule violations committed by the prisoner to support a charge of being a habitual rule violator, did not violate the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy. (The finding that he was a habitual rule violator, however, was overturned on appeal on the basis of an untimely filing of that particular charge). Portee v. Vannatta, No. 04-1080, 105 Fed. Appx. 855 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's vague statement that other unidentified inmates would be willing to testify on his behalf if what had already been presented in the testimony of three inmates "wasn't enough" was insufficient to constitute a request to call additional witnesses. The prisoner therefore waived his right to call additional witnesses in his prison disciplinary hearing, and there was no basis for overturning the determination of guilt. Vigliotti v. Duncan, 781 N.Y.S.2d 800 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Evidence of ink stains on prisoner's fingers supported the conclusion in a disciplinary hearing that he had pulled a fire alarm coated with anti-theft detection powder, so that his claim that the discipline imposed violated his due process rights was properly dismissed. Sarmiento v. Hemingway, No. 03-1809, 93 Fed. Appx. 65 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Determination in disciplinary proceeding that prisoner violated rules prohibiting gang activity was adequately supported by his two outgoing letters making reference to gang issues and activities, along with testimony at the hearing and the content of a misbehavior report. Knight v. McGinnis, 781 N.Y.S.2d 716 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's guilty plea to disciplinary charges of possessing contraband and smuggling barred his lawsuit arguing that the hearing's guilty determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Prisoner's admission that he knew he was not authorized to possess certain items, but was "too lazy" to throw them away, together with misconduct report, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination. Nelson v. Goord, 781 N.Y.S.2d 790 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was not barred from pursuing his claim that his disciplinary segregation was the result of him improperly being denied the right to present witnesses at disciplinary hearing merely because his disciplinary segregation lasted only 77 days. The question of whether his conditions of confinement in disciplinary segregation were "atypical" was unknown, based on the record presented. Withrow v. Donnelly, No. 03-CV-6283L, 333 F. Supp. 2d 108 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Appeals court orders further proceedings on prisoner's claim that he was falsely charged and disciplined for misconduct in retaliation for prior grievances and lawsuits against a correctional officer. Summary judgment for defendant officer was improper without considering another inmate's affidavit concerning officer's alleged retaliatory intent, and the issue of proximity in time between prisoner's exercise of his First Amendment rights and the alleged retaliatory action. Muhammed v. Close, #02-1043, 379 F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
California prisoner's disciplinary punishment for possession of drugs was adequately supported by "some evidence" based solely on positive urinalysis test, even if it would have been insufficient under state law to support a criminal conviction. Loss of 120 days of good time credits, however, was excessive under state statute. In re Dikes, No. A104121 121 Cal. App. 4th 825;18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 9 (Cal. 1st App. Dist. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Failure of a misbehavior report to use the term "cannabinoids" in describing the positive results of an accused prisoner's second urine drug screening test was insufficient as a basis to overturn a guilty determination in a prison disciplinary proceeding. The report was adequate in stating that the first drug test indicated the use of cannabinoids, and that the second test "also proved positive." Sabater v. Selsky, 772 N.Y.S.2d 733 (A.D. 3d Dept. Feb. 26, 2004). [N/R]
Illinois prisoner was entitled to a new hearing in his prison disciplinary case when Department of Corrections refused to interview witnesses for his defense in response to his request. Gilchrist v. Synder, #4-03-0629, 814 N.E.2d 147 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (July 23, 2004). [N/R]
Misbehavior report based on signed statements gathered from witnesses to alleged assault and fighting was sufficient to support disciplinary action against accused prisoner. Appellate court rejects the argument that the author of the report had to witness the fight himself in order for the report to be relied on in the hearing. Howard v. Goord, 779 N.Y.S.2d 871 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's disciplinary conviction for making threats and interfering with an employee was adequately supported by correctional officer's statement that he had screamed racial epithets, profanity, and threats at her when she told him that she could not stay after the prisoner said that he was "not finished" with her. The differing versions of the incident presented by the prisoner and others "presented a credibility issue" that the hearing officer was free to resolve against the prisoner. Goncalves v. Donnelly, 779 N.Y.S. 842 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Discipline imposed on prisoner for alleged drug dealing in facility was properly set aside when corrections officer who wrote report based on confidential informants' testimony was not called as a witness at the hearing, as the statements provided by the confidential informants lacked "any degree of reliability or trustworthiness." Further, a mandatory rule of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections provided that "The accusing employee must be summoned when the report is based solely on information from Confidential Informants." (emphasis in original rule). Singleton v. State of Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, No. 2003 CA 1294 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who was transferred from a Virginia correctional facility to one in Kentucky had no protected liberty interest under the Interstate Corrections Compact requiring the application of Virginia disciplinary rules to his conduct. The ICC only requires that inmates be treated equally with similar inmates in the receiving state and gives the receiving state the responsibility of supervising and maintaining proper discipline over the transferred prisoners. Vigue v. Underwood, No. 2003-CA-000830-MR, 139 S.W.3d 168 (Ky. App. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction of inmate for violating a rule against extortion was supported by substantial evidence including testimony by prisoner victim that accused inmate had demanded that he pay $300 for drugs he had received and allegedly already paid for or else there would be "problems." Jackson v. Goord, 778 N.Y.S.2d 565 (A.D. 2004). [N/R]
A urinalysis test which was positive for the controlled substance TCH (Cannabinoids) was "some evidence" sufficient to uphold a disciplinary hearing's finding that a prisoner possessed contraband in violation of prison rules. In Re Dikes, #A104123, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 9 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2004). [N/R]
New York prisoner was not improperly denied the right to call witnesses at the disciplinary hearing finding him guilty of violating prison rules against the use of controlled substances based on the hearing officer's refusal to allow him to call every other prisoner who provided a urine sample on the same date. Finding of guilt was based on substantial evidence and prisoner failed to explain what all these witnesses would add, other than arguments based on "pure speculation." Graziano v. Selsky, 779 N.Y.S.2d 848 (A.D. 3d Dist. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Disciplinary determination that prisoner violated rules against the possession of contraband was adequately supported by substantial evidence, including his admission that he had an empty pretzel bag containing loose poppy seeds and a misbehavior report. Gonzalez v. Goord, 779 N.Y.S.2d 602 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Barring an accused inmate from two disciplinary hearings was necessary to preserve safety based on his conduct at another hearing held earlier that same day which required his forcible removal and resulted in a struggle with the officers bringing him back to his cell. Alexander v. Ricks, 779 N.Y.S.2d 606 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Circumstantial evidence presented at a disciplinary hearing concerning the prisoner's alleged committing of an "unhygienic act" of throwing feces and damaging of state property was sufficient to support a determination of his guilt. Correctional officer indicated that there had been no feces in a cell when he observed it earlier, that the presence of the feces outside the bars indicated that they had been thrown inside from the outside, and that the accused prisoner, serving as a food porter, was the only inmate present outside the cell during the period in question. Martinez v. Goord, 779 N.Y.S.2d 824 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoners were entitled to habeas relief when their disciplinary convictions, which were the basis for revocation of their earned credits, were not supported by "some evidence." Their requests for disbursements from their inmate mandatory savings accounts to pay court copying fees for records and transcripts needed to prepare applications for post-conviction relief were reasonable under both a prison policy concerning the use of funds in such accounts and an Oklahoma state statute, and their disciplinary convictions for obtaining money by false pretense were therefore not supported by the evidence. Gamble v. Calbone, #03-6057, 375 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
One-year statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits under Kentucky state law applied to a prisoner's declaratory judgment action claiming that his due process rights had been violated during a prison disciplinary hearing which found him guilty of violation of rules concerning dangerous contraband. Million v. Raymer, No. 2002-SC-0205-DG, 136 S.W.3d 460 (Ky. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary finding against prisoner for violating rules against marijuana use was supported by sufficient evidence, including drug test results which were admissible despite certain problems concerning the chain of custody of a urine sample, where the sample was clearly identified and had an intact seal when it arrived in a reasonable period of time at the testing lab. Lucas v. Voirol, No. 2003-CA-001811-MR, 136 S.W.3d 477 (Ky. App. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary determination that prisoner violated rules against possession of drugs was adequately supported by substantial evidence, including positive drug test results and misbehavior report. The chain of custody of the sample was shown, along with evidence that the testing procedures followed were proper. Otero v. Selsky, 779 N.Y.S.2d 648 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Trial court properly
denied correctional employees qualified immunity on prisoner's due process
claims that he was not provided with proper notice of the charges and the
evidence relied on in connection with his prison disciplinary hearing, but
should have granted them qualified immunity on prisoner's claim that evidence
presented was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. Sira v. Morton, No.
03-0156, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15897 (2d Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Prison guard was not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that he filed a false misconduct ticket against a prisoner in retaliation for his "jailhouse lawyering" activity. Law prohibiting such retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights was clearly established. Scott v. Churchill, No. 03-2427, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15269 (6th Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Prisoner who "laughed and clapped" while watching terrorist attacks on television on 9-11-2001, and then told another inmate that he saw their "chance to take this place," was properly found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting rioting. Linares v. Goord, 778 N.Y.S.2d 550 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
New York inmate was properly found guilty of violating prison rules against unauthorized use of drugs, based on substantial evidence, including positive urinalysis test and supporting documentation. Prisoner was also properly found guilty of sexual misconduct based on testimony of correctional officer who witnessed the inmate's wife in the prison visiting room with her hand down inside the inmate's pants. Sanchez v. Selsky, 778 N.Y.S.2d 561 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner properly denied further visitation of inmate's fiancee to prison based on evidence that he sent money to her in exchange for heroin she allegedly conspired to bring into the facility. Correctional officials had reasonable grounds to believe that continued visits would have caused a serious threat to prison security. Substantial evidence also supported determination that prisoner was guilty of violating disciplinary rules against possession of money, promoting prison contraband, and smuggling. Encarnacion v. Goord, 778 N.Y.S.2d 562 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplinary hearing officer's decision in maximum-security prison to deny prisoner's request to call inmate he allegedly beat as a live witness in the hearing was not a denial of due process. Other prisoner's written statement was received, and officer reasonably exercised his discretion to protect the witness against possible reprisal in case his testimony was not as the accused prisoner wanted. Brown v. Braxton, No. 03-6763 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 13626 (4th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Prisoner in psychiatric housing unit asserted a valid claim for unlawful retaliation against him for reporting that a correctional officer exposed his penis to him and made vulgar remarks, and then falsely accused him of misconduct after he refused to refrain from reporting the incident. Austin v. Terhune, #02-16546, 367 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Determination that prisoner was guilty of violating rules against violent conduct, assaults against correctional staff, refusing direct orders, and property damage was supported by substantial evidence, including officers' testimony and video surveillance tape. Nothing in the record showed that the hearing officer was biased against the prisoner or based the determination of guilt on anything aside from the evidence presented at the hearing. Porter v. Goord, 776 N.Y.S.2d 355 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Finding of guilt on charges of assaulting another inmate and related charges was adequately supported by substantial evidence at disciplinary hearing. The absence of the assault victim from the hearing, who the prisoner wanted to call as a witness, was adequately explained by the hearing officer and by the victim's signed witness refusal form. Lebron v. Goord, 775 N.Y.S.2d 434 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's inclusion of a false and irrelevant "rumor" concerning the sexual conduct of a female guard in a grievance he filed against her for allegedly failing to inform him that it was time to eat was not protected speech under the First Amendment. Hale v. Scott, #03-1949, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11581 (7th Cir. 2004).[2004 JB Jul]
Hearing officer in disciplinary hearing which resulted in sentence of prisoner to 90 days of confinement in Special Housing Unit was not entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner's due process claim challenging alleged procedural defects in the hearing, including purported intentional erasure of a portion of a tape of the hearing containing exculpatory testimony. Palmer v. Richards, #03-290, 364 F.3d 60 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Jul]
Disciplinary committee's decision denying accused inmate's request for production of a videotape of the alleged disciplinary incident in which he was accused of using abusive language was improper, in the absence of any factual finding that the videotape would be irrelevant or that production would be either hazardous to prison safety or a violation of some statute or rule. Barnes v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, No. A-02-797, 676 N.W.2d 385 (Neb. App. 2004). [N/R]
Imposition of discipline on prisoner based on staff reports, the prisoner's own statement, letters written by the prisoner, and an investigation report satisfied due process requirements, and disciplinary board provided an adequate explanation of its reasons for refusing to allow the prisoner to call a live witness because the witness had been determined to be a threat to institutional security. Thomas v. McBride, 306 F. Supp. 2d 855 (N.D. Ind. 2004). [N/R]
The fact that witnesses refused to testify did not violate the prisoner's right to call witnesses in a disciplinary proceeding. Hearing officer also adequately assessed the credibility of confidential information through a detailed exchange with a correctional officer and was not required to himself interview the confidential informant. Berry v. Portuondo, 775 N.Y.S.2d 110 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Disciplining of prisoner for alleged assault on another inmate in a new disciplinary proceeding approximately a year after he had been found not to be the perpetrator in a prior proceeding was improper, as the issue was previously decided. An intercepted letter by the victim of the assault, which was ambiguous, was insufficient to constitute newly discovered material evidence sufficient to depart from this principal and reopen the case. Hernandez v. Selsky, 773 N.Y.S. 2d 178 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who had been convicted but not yet sentenced should be treated the same as a sentenced prisoner for purposes of whether he had a liberty interest in procedural due process before being punished for alleged violation of prison rules against possession of contraband, rather than being treated as a pre-trial detainee. Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of prisoner's due process lawsuit over his placement in a punitive cell for eight hours without first being given a hearing. Tilmon v. Prator, #03-31071, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8961 (5th Cir.). [2004 JB Jun]
Prisoner's claim that several correctional officers physically assaulted him was not relevant to whether he was guilty of disobeying a direct order from an officer concerning keeping his hands in his pockets while being escorted from his cell. Prisoner therefore had no right to present such a "defense" at the disciplinary hearing. Claudio v. Selsky, 772 N.Y.S. 2d 424 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Substantial evidence was present to support prisoner's disciplinary conviction for being disruptive during an interview, using obscene language towards an officer, and refusing to return to his cell when directed to do so. Branch v. Goord, 772 N.Y.S. 2d 426 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Warden of parish jail did not have power, under Louisiana law, to classify a cell phone and charger as contraband. Statute defined what items were contraband in correction facilities in the state. State of Louisiana v. Miller, #2003-KK-0206, 857 So. 2d 423 (Louisiana 2003). [N/R]
California prisoner's violation of the rule against disrespect of prison staff was not a "serious" rule violation sufficient to support a loss of conduct credits, since it was not a "repeated pattern of administrative rule violation for the same offense." The prisoner's previous violations were of different offenses. In Re Smith, No. B166178, 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887 (Cal. App. 2d Dist 2003). [N/R]
Notice that prisoner received informing him that he was being charged with "rioting" and had been identified as an active participant in a dormitory riot on a particular date was sufficient to give the prisoner adequate notice of the charges against him for due process purposes. Subsequent finding that prisoner was guilty of the offense was adequately supported by some evidence, including statements of confidential informants and a conduct report identifying the prisoner as having participated in the disturbance. Hite v. Davis, #02-2818, 70 Fed. Appx. 352 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Refusal to allow prisoner to call inmate witnesses at administrative segregation hearing did not violate his procedural due process rights when the inmates were asked the questions the prisoner prepared and their audiotaped responses were played at the hearing. Rosales v. Bennett, 297 F. Supp. 2d 637 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainee's claim that deputy sheriff found him guilty of a major offense he was not charged with, and which had no factual connections to the actual charges brought stated a claim for violation of due process. Jones v. Brown, 300 F. Supp. 2d 674 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court rules that prisoners may pursue federal civil rights lawsuits for damages over prison discipline despite the fact that the disciplinary conviction has not been set aside, so long as the lawsuit challenges only the conditions of confinement, rather than the fact or duration of the confinement. Muhammad aka Mease v. Close, # 02-9065, 124 S. Ct. 1303 (2004). [2004 JB Apr]
Prisoner who pled guilty to the violations of prison rules asserted in a misbehavior report could not subsequently challenge the finding that he in fact violated those rules. Cross v. Goord, 770 N.Y.S.2d 245 (A.D. Dept. 4 2003). [N/R]
There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that a prisoner made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to be present at his disciplinary hearing. Court upholds ruling annulling determination finding prisoner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules. Rush v. Goord, 770 N.Y.S.2d 191 (A.D. Dept. 3 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner was entitled to further proceedings concerning alleged denial of due process in disciplinary hearing when the disciplinary board allegedly refused to allow live testimony of witnesses without providing a reason for doing so, and also allegedly refused to review allegedly exculpatory evidence on surveillance videotape of incident. Ashby v. Davis, No. 02-3007, 82 Fed. Appx. 467 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Alleged failure to allow prisoner to present live testimony at prison disciplinary hearing was harmless when he failed to indicate which witnesses he wanted to call or what he expected them to say, and adequate evidence supported charge that he had unauthorized sexual contact with a prison visitor. Sargent v. Knight, #02-3489, 82 F.3d. Appx. 472 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Refusal to allow a wheelchair bound prisoner to present live witness testimony from inmates during a disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights. Prisoner had a protected liberty interest based on combination of his physical disability and his confinement for two months in administrative segregation in a housing unit which was not designed to accommodate disabled prisoners, and where he was denied access to his wheelchair. Serrano v. Frances, No. 01-57036, 345 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison officials violated his First Amendment and due process rights by transferring him to administrative segregation in a special housing unit after his appeal of his rule violation resulted in an order for a new hearing. Jackson v. Carey, No. 01-17126, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26264, (9th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
Prison disciplinary hearing finding inmate guilty of violating rules concerning correspondence procedures and providing unauthorized legal assistance to other inmates was not supported by substantial evidence in the absence of the introduction of a package (and its contents) allegedly sent to him by another prisoner. Collins v. Pearlman, 756 N.Y.S.2d 582 (A.D. 2d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Claim that prisoner was punished "more harshly" than other inmates who also were involved in the same scheme involving sending funds outside the prison to a person who then forwarded payments back to another prisoner did not show a violation of his right to equal protection of law. The plaintiff prisoner did not present any evidence about the disciplinary histories of the other inmates involved in the scheme or the particular circumstances of their involvement in the immediate misconduct, so it could not be established that officials acted irrationally in imposing greater punishment on the plaintiff. Hill v. Davis, No. 02-2640, 58 Fed. Appx. 207 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
While Florida law required a prisoner asserting a claim against the state or one of its agencies to serve process on the state Department of Insurance, a non-party to the lawsuit, there was no time period within which to do so, and therefore it was not a precondition to maintaining a lawsuit against the state Department of Corrections for alleged malicious prosecution of the plaintiff prisoner on disciplinary charges of unlawful possession of wine. Cole v. Department of Corrections, No. 4D01-3462, 840 So. 2d 398 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Determination that prisoner violated rules prohibiting him from being out of place and refusing to obey direct orders was supported by substantial evidence. Hearing officer did not violate prisoner's rights by refusing to call two witnesses, when they had no direct knowledge of the events at issue, and he properly allowed certain witnesses to testify by speaker-phone. Ardale v. Keane, 760 N.Y.S. 2d 563 (A.D. 3d Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that disciplinary board failed to follow its own procedural guidelines was sufficient to support a proceeding for a common law writ of certiorari under Tennessee state law. Prisoner claimed that he was not provided with adequate notice of the charges, was not permitted to obtain and introduce relevant exculpatory evidence, and that the board failed to independently assess a confidential informant's reliability. Punishments of 30 days of punitive segregation, involuntary administrative segregation, and a five-dollar fine for an escape attempt did not violate the prisoner's protected liberty interests under the due process clauses of either the U.S. or Tennessee state constitutions. Willis v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 113 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability on claim that they violated detainee's procedural due process rights by denying fingerprint analysis of a shank found in his cell, which he was disciplined for possessing. Prisoner claimed that shank was planted there, but there was no clearly established due process right to have the prison "prepare evidence" for the prisoner under such circumstances. Okocci v. Klein, 270 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Pa. 2003). [N/R]
Correctional officers accused of retaliation against prisoner for supporting another inmate's excessive force claim by pursuing disciplinary charges against prisoner would not be liable for violation of his First Amendment rights if they could demonstrate "dual motivation," showing that even without their "improper" motivation, the prisoner would have been subjected to the same actions. Scott v. Coughlin, #99-0365, 344 F.3d 282 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
Prisoner could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit challenging procedures used in prison disciplinary proceeding or the resulting administrative sanction, such as placement in segregation without first having disciplinary determination set aside, since a successful claim would not necessarily result in any earlier release from incarceration, federal appeals court rules. Ramirez v. Galaza, #00-15994, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
Alaska Supreme Court rules that imposition of discipline on prisoner based on a hearing conducted by a single hearing officer did not violate state constitutional right to due process, even if administrative code then required a hearing by three hearing officers, in the absence of any showing of bias. Brandon v. State of Alaska Dept. of Corrections, No. S-10056, 73 P.3d 1230 (Alaska 2003). [N/R]
Disciplinary finding that prisoner who was observed trying to stab another inmate with a pen was guilty of possessing contraband that could be classified as a weapon was not supported by substantial evidence. Court rules that an "unaltered pen" was not contraband, but that prisoner was properly found guilty of violating rules against assaulting other prisoners. Lamage v. Selsky, 760 N.Y.S.2d 561 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Evidence of positive drug test, positive retest, and positive independent retest which prisoner requested were sufficiently reliable to support his disciplinary conviction for drug use. Direct testimony by director of laboratory which did testing was not necessary when documentation was presented at hearing concerning the reliability of the testing procedure and the chain of custody of the sample tested. Claypool v. Nebraska DCS, No. A-02-812, 667 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. App. 2003). [N/R]
Alleged failure to grant prisoner the right to request interviews of witnesses to incident and the consideration of their testimony at disciplinary hearing violated the prisoner's due process rights. Armstrong v. Snyder, No. 4-02-0271, 783 N.E.2d 1101 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence of events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty interest in continued participation in work release program which could not be ended without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Massachusetts prisoner did not have constitutionally protected liberty interests which were infringed by his loss of visitation for six weeks as a punishment for allegedly violating prison disciplinary rules. Childers v. Maloney, 247 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner had no federal constitutional right not to be falsely accused of misconduct in prison disciplinary hearings, nor could a federal civil rights claim be based on the mere failure to follow all applicable state procedures in the hearing held. Jackson v. Hamlin, #02-2040, 61 Fed. Appx. 131 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
There was substantial evidence to support the determination that a prisoner was guilty of violating disciplinary rules prohibiting making threats and harassment of staff members by sending a nurse a letter with derogatory and insulting language, as well as refusing direct orders from a correctional officer to step out of a recreation area. Green v. Ricks, 760 N.Y.S.2d 238 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Female prison guard's conduct report, stating that inmate, while naked, jumped around his cell and made sexual gestures and comments to her was a sufficient basis for a disciplinary board's decision to find the prisoner guilty of violating rules against making sexual propositions to a staff member and impose a punishment of the loss of 180 days of good-time credits. Higgason v. Hanks, No. 02-2775, 64 Fed. Appx. 556 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
The proper focus in deciding whether a prisoner was entitled to due process protection before being sentenced to confinement in a special housing unit, a federal appeals court rules, was the number of days in the sentence, not the number of days the prisoner actually wound up serving. Denial of qualified immunity to defendant correctional officials upheld in prisoner's lawsuit over his sentence to ten years in special housing unit. Hanrahan v. Doling, #02-0169, 331 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Prison disciplinary committee hearing officer needed to make specific findings as to why he found that the materials a prisoner was being punished for possessing were "gang-related." Additionally, findings were required to determine if the prisoner had, as he claimed, been previously disciplined for possessing the same materials, which were allegedly confiscated from him and then returned to him. Balagun v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 824 A.2d 1109 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Prison disciplinary and grievance committees in Illinois were not required to follow the requirements of the state Administrative Procedure Act, 5 ILCS 100/1-1 et seq. in conducting their hearings and other proceedings, so that alleged failure to do so in connection with revocation of prisoner's good-time credits did not violate his state statutory rights or his right to constitutional due process. Ratliff-El v. Briley, No. 3-01-0727, 789 N.E.2d 781 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's conviction of a disciplinary offense of possessing tobacco in violation of prison rules was supported by some evidence, based on correctional officer's filed report that she observed him with a baggy of what appeared to be tobacco, which was sufficient to uphold the discipline imposed. Disciplinary proceeding provided adequate due process even though another prisoner involved in the same incident was not convicted. Graham v. Vannatta, No. 02-3155, 64 Fed. Appx. 575 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner who did not argue in his administrative appeals of loss of good time credits that his requests to call witnesses were refused could not raise that argument for the first time in federal habeas corpus proceeding. Morrow v. Vannatta, No. 02-1837, 64 Fed. Appx. 553 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Substantial evidence supported a disciplinary determination that a prisoner had violated rules against possession of controlled substances when a correctional officer testified that a bag, containing heroin and attached to a drag line, was seen hanging outside the prisoner's cell, the chain of custody of the prisoner's urine sample was adequate, and the proper drug testing procedures were followed. Davis v. Selsky, 759 N.Y.S.2d (A.D. 3d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's discipline for stating in a filed grievance that a female correctional officer was rumored to be having sex with male correctional officers did not violate his First Amendment rights. The manner in which the statement was made insinuated that the statement was true and the prisoner had no actual evidence as to the truth of the rumor. Hale v. Scott, 252 F. Supp. 2d 728 (C.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Federal appeals court holds that prisoner could bring a civil rights lawsuit over prison discipline without first having the disciplinary proceeding invalidated as long as his claims challenged only the conditions of his confinement, not the fact of the confinement or its duration. Alejo v. Heller, No. 01-1573, 328 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
There was substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt of a prison disciplinary offense of harassment based on the action of the prisoner, a convicted rapist, in sending an unsolicited 4-1/2 page letter to a female employee in a college registrar's office. Prisoner only knew of the employee because she had responded to his earlier letter in which he requested a copy of his transcript, and the letter he then sent contained repeated use of sexual innuendo, requests for personal information and intimate details, and a "suggestion of in-person contact in the near future." Van Bramer v. Selsky, 758 N.Y.S.2d 170 (A.D. 3d 2003). [N/R]
Some evidence supported disciplinary finding that prisoner had used clandestine cellular telephone without authorization when one number called was only on his approved calling list and other inmates, who had admittedly used the phone, identified him as among the persons who had used it. Sinde v. Gerlinski, 252 F. Supp. 2d 144 (M.D. Pa. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegations that correctional officials denied him access to the law library, filed false disciplinary charges against him, and arranged to transfer him in retaliation for his actions in filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against them adequately stated a claim for denial of access to the courts. Federal appeals court notes that Defendant officials did not respond to these claims, and that the prisoner claimed to have been denied access even to the applicable rules on summary judgment before his other claims were rejected on the Defendants' summary judgment motion. Goodman v. Smith, No. 02-6313, 58 Fed. Appx. 36 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jul]
Prisoner was properly disciplined for violating rule against the use of controlled substances. Correctional officer who tested the prisoner's urine sample was certified and qualified to do so. Perez v. Goord, 757 N.Y.S.2d 382 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
Prison rule prohibiting noncompliance with designated boundaries and schedules of living units and work assignments was sufficient to provide prisoner with adequate notice that his action in returning to the dining hall to eat a second breakfast when he was supposed to go to a medical area for a blood test was a violation of the rule. Court rejects prisoners due process challenge to discipline based on this rule violation. Nelson v. Hayden, No. 28031, 67 P.3d 98 (Idaho App. 2003). [N/R]
New Jersey appeals court orders new hearing for prisoner found guilty of threatening a correctional officer based on improper denial of prisoner's request to confront, question, and cross-examine the accusing officer and present live testimony by another correctional officer who witnessed the incident. Hearing officer's determination of credibility solely based on accusing officer's written statements violated prisoner's 6th Amendment rights. Jones v. Department of Corrections, 819 A.2d 1 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003). [2003 JB Jul]
Composition of disciplinary board which found prisoner guilty of participating in a riot did not violate his right to due process even if it violated a prison policy that it should be composed of employees of the private company managing the prison rather than employees of the state department of corrections. Constitutional due process merely requires that the decision maker be impartial. Sampson v. Davis, #02-3037, 58 Fed. Appx. 217 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jul]
An investigation into a prisoner's report that he had been raped by his cellmate on multiple occasions provided substantial evidence to support a disciplinary determination that he was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules against sexual activity and that the activity was consensual. Umber v. Murphy, 757 N.Y.S.2d 379 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
A prisoner could not be found guilty of unauthorized conduct or misuse of state property based on the presence of unauthorized files on computer disk he had handled. Prisoner had been authorized to use the disk to create files on the disk clearly identified as his, and the disk was in a common area where others had access to it. Bartley v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 757 N.Y.S.2d 380 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
Jail officials did not violate prisoner's First Amendment rights by disciplining him for the use of insolent and threatening language in grievances that he filed. "True threats" are not protected at all under the First Amendment, and the purpose of the grievance procedure was to bring issues to the attention of jail authorities, not to provide a forum to make "disparaging, degrading" or abusive comments about jail staff members. In Re Parmelee, No. 47231-3-I, 63 P.3d 800 (Wash. App. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Under a prior consent decree concerning New York prisoners and correctional rules established to implement the decree, specifically 7 NYCRR Ses. 200.1-200-5, misconduct that is unrelated to visitation cannot be used as the basis for a denial of visitation rights. Accordingly, an inmate's right to contact visitation could not be denied based on his alleged violent behavior against prison staff members, when it had not occurred during a visitation period, and prisoner was entitled to $100 in damages for the denial. Dawes v. State of New York, Claim No. 102133, 755 N.Y.S.2d 221 (Ct. Cl. 2003). [N/R]
The imposition of discipline on a prisoner for violating the telephone policy by phoning a former inmate on home confinement was a violation of his due process rights when he did not have fair notice that the policy applied to phoning former prisoners confined at home as well as to those now in halfway houses. Seehausen v. Van Buren, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Ore. 2002). [N/R]
Disciplinary conviction of prisoner for violation of a rule against making threats to prison staff members was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony of officer who prepared a misbehavior report after witnessing the conduct. The disputed issue of whether the prisoner intended a threat by suggesting, to an officer, that they "go outside" was an issue of credibility for the hearing officer to resolve. Moore v. Walsh, 755 N.Y.S.2d 447 (A.D. 3 Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Prison disciplinary hearing officers were protected from inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit for damages by absolute judicial immunity for actions they took in the course of their official duties. Clemons v. Cook, No. 02-1724, 52 Fed. Appx. 762 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Prisoner's placement in segregation for three days after being found guilty of a disciplinary charge of making threatening statements did not implicate a protected liberty interest, since it was not an "atypical and significant hardship." No basis found for prisoner's race discrimination claim. Adams v. Jones, No. 02-5472, 52 Fed. Appx. 744 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Disciplinary process that found inmate guilty of possessing anti-depressant drugs not prescribed for him by the medical staff did not violate his due process rights. Prisoner was provided written notice of the charges, and he waived the opportunities to present witnesses or to be represented during the hearing. Allen v. Reese, #02-2337, 52 Fed. Appx. 7 (8th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Warden of West Virginia prison lacked authority to prohibit prisoners from applying for the restoration of good time credit until two years preceding their discharge date. Court also finds that failure to provide prisoners charged with disciplinary offenses with detailed notices of formal charges within a reasonable period of time would violate due process rights. State Ex Rel. Williams v. Dept. of Military Affairs, No. 30407, 573 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Any questions regarding the chain of custody of the prisoner's urine samples, which was the basis for the finding that he violated prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the use of controlled substances twice, were sufficiently explained in the course of the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing. The prisoner's claim that the hearing officer was biased was similarly without merit. Montalbo v. Selsky, 752 N.Y.S.2d 920 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's right to disclosure of exculpatory materials was not violated in a prison disciplinary proceeding against him for attempting to procure drugs when he was not allowed to view a security videotape which showed the alleged transport of the drugs between prisoners' cells. The evidence of the tape was not withheld from the fact-finders, and allowing the inmate access could jeopardize prison security by disclosing the location of the camera, which could result in the avoidance of detection in the future. Herrera v. Davis, No. 02-2186, 54 Fed. Appx. 861 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that a parolee who had fully served a period of additional imprisonment that had been caused by the loss of good time credits because of prison discipline could pursue a federal civil rights claim for damages despite not having first invalidating his discipline, since any petition for habeas relief would be dismissed as moot. Appeals court holds that justice required making an action for money damages available under the circumstances, despite the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), since the prisoner in this case was released from custody while his lawsuit was pending. Nonnette v. Small, No. 00-55702 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner provided no evidentiary support for his claim that the misbehavior report concerning his "disruptively loud" telephone conversation and his refusal to obey orders to desist was "fabricated" in retaliation for prior conflicts with a correctional officer. Discipline of prisoner on the basis of misbehavior report is upheld. Crawford v. Girdich, 752 N.Y.S.2d 919 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
A punishment of loss of 180 days of good time credit and transfer to another facility was not "grossly disproportionate" to the severity of his offense of threatening a prison staff member and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights. Higgason v. Hanks, No. 01-4022, 54 Fed. Appx. 448 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prison officials failed to meet their burden of showing that they would have imposed the same punishment on a prisoner regardless of their alleged retaliation against him for exercising his constitutionally protected right to use the prison grievance system to complain about alleged staff racism. Gayle v. Gonyea, No. 01-0218, 313 F.3d 677 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
Disciplinary determination against a prisoner which occurred 15 days after the writing of an inmate misbehavior report was not untimely under a New York administrative regulation when the 14th day after the report was written fell on a Sunday, so that the grant of an extension of time on the 15th day was ok. Faison v. Goord, 751 N.Y.S. 2d 224 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
Evidence supported disciplinary hearing's conclusion that inmate was guilty of violating prison rules prohibiting trafficking in tobacco. Disciplinary board's statement that it believed the staff conduct report and investigation report to be true and accurate adequately informed the prisoner of the basis of its decision. Godby v. Hanks, #01-4307, 51 Fed. Appx. 592 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue his federal civil rights lawsuit challenging his disciplinary conviction for destroying state property when he had not previously succeeded in setting the disciplinary conviction aside. Prisoner was precluded from doing so under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), requiring that a disciplinary conviction be set aside before a prisoner may pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Gates v. Vannatta, #01-3597, 51 Fed. App. 597 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Disciplinary decision that prisoner violated rules prohibiting the unauthorized use of a controlled substance was supported by "substantial evidence," including two positive urine tests for the presence of opiates and evidence that the tests and the storage and handling of the samples was properly carried out. Herring v. Goord, 750 N.Y.S.2d 373 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's due process rights were not violated at disciplinary hearing by a defect in the audio recording of the testimony, despite a state law requirement that an electronic record be kept, or by the hearing officer's alleged failure to call witnesses who the inmate failed to sufficiently identify. Dixon v. Goord, 224 F. Supp. 2d 739 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
Louisiana inmate could not pursue a lawsuit against correctional officials over prison discipline when a state statute, LRS-R.S. 15:1177, subd. A, required that he seek judicial review of an adverse administrative remedy decision within 30 days and he failed to do so. Peterson v. Toffton, No. 36,372-CA, 828 So. 2d 160 (La. App., 2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Statute of limitations period for filing a habeas petition challenging the validity of a disciplinary action that resulted in a prisoner's loss of good-time credits was tolled (extended) during the time that the prisoner's administrative appeals were pending in the prison grievance process. Foley v. Cockrell, 222 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Tex. 2002).[N/R]
Prisoner could not sue for damages for alleged due process violations in prison disciplinary proceeding for hitting fellow inmates with a baseball bat or pursue claim that disciplinary charges were brought against him for racially discriminatory reasons. No such lawsuit was permitted unless the disciplinary conviction was first set aside. Prisoner's claim for habeas corpus was his proper avenue for restoration of lost good time credits, and his placement in punitive segregation for 30 days was not an "atypical and significant hardship" implicating a protected liberty interest. Portley-El v. Brill, #00-1923, 288 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Evidence was sufficient to find prisoner guilty of violating correctional correspondence procedures when there was testimony that he had previously been notified that his cousin, to whom he mailed a letter, had been added to his "negative correspondence list." Even if prisoner was correct that the addition of the name to the list was unauthorized, he was not entitled to ignore the listing and mail the letter. Gibson v. Goord, 741 N.Y.S.2d 577 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
Inmate sufficiently pleaded facts to support his claim that officials retaliated against him by imposing disciplinary sanctions for his "jailhouse lawyering" activities when defendants did not assert whether the prisoner had actually committed prison rule violations which would defeat the retaliation claim. Williams v. Manternach, 192 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Iowa 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prison warden did not violate inmates due process rights by initially refusing to grant his appeal from a hearing officer's determination that he had violated prison rules forbidding the use of controlled substances, even though the prisoner's positive urine test for opiates was due to his use of prescription medicine. The prisoner's placement in segregation did not interfere with a protected liberty interest. Nichols v. Maryland Correctional Institution--Jessup, 186 F. Supp. 2d 575 (D. Md. 2002). [2002 JB Jun]
Prisoner who was placed in punitive segregation in special housing unit as punishment for disciplinary offenses was entitled to procedural due process at disciplinary hearings when he had spent 1,300 days in special housing unit confinement, but the record showed that he received adequate due process and that the hearing officer was sufficiently fair and impartial, despite being the supervisor of the security staff who responded to the incident at issue. Espinal v. Goord, 180 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 JB May]
Post-deprivation disciplinary hearing after prisoner was put into segregation based on his alleged involvement in bringing drugs into the prison was sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. Riggins v. Walter, No. 93-3124, 279 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB May]
Prisoner did not state a valid claim for review of the disciplinary action against him under New York law by asserting that a correctional officer had been abusive and falsely accused him of rule violations for purposes of harassment, when the prisoner did not allege that the officer played any role in making the final determination in the prison disciplinary proceeding. Cliff v. Greene, 724 N.Y.S.2d 780 (A.D. 2001). [N/R]
299:172 Prisoner who lost good-time credits when he tested positive for drug use could not pursue claim that officer asked him to take the test in retaliation for filing a grievance against her unless the disciplinary determination was first set aside; prisoner could, however, pursue claims of retaliation concerning the filing of allegedly false disciplinary complaints against him or his transfer in alleged retaliation for questioning an officer's authority to deny him legal assistance. Farver v. Schwartz, No. 00-3729EA, 255 F.3d 473 (8th Cir. 2001).
298:155 Determination that prisoner assaulted another inmate in the shower was supported by substantial evidence contained in detailed misbehavior report. Haynes v. Andrews, 725 N.Y.S.2d 115 (A.D. 2001).
298:147 Prisoner with impaired hearing could pursue injunctive remedies against state Department of Corrections under federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on claim that it should have provided a sign-language interpreter during disciplinary hearings and administration of medical care. Randolph v. Rodgers, No. 00-1897, 253 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2001).
297:135 Prisoner was required to exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding with lawsuit challenging prison drug testing policies, which constituted a claim about "prison conditions," but he was not required to do so on claims that prison officials took retaliatory disciplinary actions against him individually. Giano v. Goord, #98-2619, 250 F.3d 146 (2nd Cir. 2001).
294:88 Prisoner did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit for particular, individualized instance of alleged retaliation by correctional officer; inmate claimed officer filed disciplinary charges against him because of his complaints to prison authorities about the officer's alleged misconduct. Lawrence v. Goord, No. 99-0202, 238 F.3d 182 (2nd Cir. 2001).
293:75 Officer was protected by qualified immunity from liability for bringing disciplinary proceeding against a Moslem inmate in retaliation for his wearing "kufi" religious headgear, since a reasonable officer could have concluded that contraband could be concealed under the kufi. Nicholas v. Tucker, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2323 (S.D.N.Y.).
293:72 N.Y. prisoner awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages against correctional officer who allegedly found him guilty of a disciplinary infraction in retaliation for his participation
in an inmate grievance resolution committee. Maurer v. Patterson, 197 F.R.D. 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
291:42 Prisoner's lawsuit over his disciplinary hearing conviction was properly dismissed as frivolous without a hearing when the finding of guilt was supported by "some evidence"; federal appeals court joins four other federal circuits in ruling that prisoner's suit could be screened for, and dismissed for, frivolous claims regardless of whether or not prisoner was proceeding as a pauper. Plunk v. Givens, No. 00-1375, 234 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: Four other federal appeals courts have reached the same conclusion--that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b) allows the screening of prisoner lawsuits for immediate dismissal whether the prisoner is proceeding as a pauper or not. See Carr v. Dvorin, #98-2086, 171 F.3d 115 (2nd Cir. 1999); Martin v. Scott, #97-41242, 156 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, #98-9113, 527 U.S. 1041 (1999); Benson v. O'Brian, #98-3017, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999); and Rowe v. Shake, #98-4207, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999).
289:14 Prisoner could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit over loss of his prison job which allegedly resulted from officers pursuing false disciplinary charges against him after he filed a complaint against an officer; despite the lack of a property or liberty interest in his job assignment, prisoner's equal protection (racial discrimination) and retaliation claims were not barred. DeWalt v. Carter, No. 98-2415, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Inmate could not pursue federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged improper discipline when disciplinary action had not previously been set aside; the fact that he was asserting his claim under the Eighth Amendment rather than some other constitutional right did not alter the result. Huey v. Stine, No. 99-1848, 230 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Former inmate claimed deprivations that were sufficiently atypical to implicate a liberty interest, stating a claim for due process violations in disciplinary proceedings, including placement in full restraints for nearly seven months after disciplinary proceedings allegedly lacking due process protections, and remaining naked in his cell for a number of days. Sims v. Artuz, #97-2674 , 230 F.3d 14 (2nd Cir. 2000)
285:139 Court rejects prisoner's claim that officers were liable for allegedly directing the filing of false disciplinary reports against him; officers were not even involved in two of the reports and the guilty finding on the third was overturned, restoring good time lost; prisoner was already in disciplinary confinement for numerous other infractions and suffered no significant hardship. Gonzalez v. Monty, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
287:165 Prisoner's alleged "stage fright," making it difficult for him to produce a urine sample for drug testing while being observed, was not a disability for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA); court also finds that discipline of prisoner for various misconduct charges was not retaliatory. Oyague v. State of New York, #98 Civ. 6721 (TPG), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12426 (S.D.N.Y.).
[N/R] Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity on issue of validity of prison regulation failing to provide for appointment of counsel substitute prior to disciplinary hearing, in the absence of any clearly established law on the subject. No. 97-2047, 191 F.3d 244 (2nd Cir. 1999).
278:24 New Jersey reaches wide-ranging $16 million settlement in lawsuit over allegedly inadequate treatment of mentally-ill prisoners and disability discrimination against them; plaintiffs' attorneys to receive $1.22 million in attorneys' fees; disciplinary policies to take prisoners' mental illness into account; all new prisoners to receive mental health assessment within 72 hours. D.M. v. Terhune, 67 F. Supp. 2d 401 (D.N.J. 1999).
279:42 Prison rule prohibiting religious services in unauthorized areas did not provide Muslim prisoner with adequate notice that his conduct of silent, individual, demonstrative prayer in recreation yard would be a violation of the rule for which he could be disciplined; Attorneys' fee cap of Prison Litigation Reform Act applied despite the fact that the lawsuit was filed before the statute's enactment; $73,694.36 in fees and costs awarded. Chatin v. Coombe, Nos. 98-2484, 98-2556, 186 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 1999).
279:46 New York prisoner had a protected liberty interest in participation in a work release program that allowed her to live at home; "technical" violation of requirement that she have notice of a hearing to consider her removal from the program only entitled her to $1 in nominal damages when she had no real basis for contesting her removal. Kim v. Hurston, No. 98-7051, 182 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 1999).
280:51 Disciplining inmate law clerk for writing letter to another prisoner containing legal advice violated law clerk's First Amendment rights. Murphy v. Shaw, No. 97- 35989, 195 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1999).
281:67 Prisoner is awarded $4,221.40 against two officers on his claim that they imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, removed him from his job in the mess hall, and transferred him to another facility in retaliation for his complaints about prisoner work schedules which arguably violated state law limiting work hours. Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F. Supp. 2d 381 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
275:170 Convicting prisoner of disciplinary offense of escape violated due process when hearing was presented with "no shred of evidence of the inmate's guilt"; such a conviction violated prisoner's rights even if it did not violate any constitutionally protected liberty interest. Burnsworth v. Gunderson, #97-16599, 179 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 1999).
275:171 Federal appeals court rules that prisoners may pursue federal civil rights lawsuits over disciplinary hearings that do not have an impact over the duration of their confinement without first being required to have the disciplinary conviction overturned. Jenkins v. Haubert, No. 98-2408, 179 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir. 1999).
» Editor's Note: The court in Anyanwutaku v. Moore, #96-7259, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998), reached substantially the same result. Another federal appeals court reached the opposite conclusion in an unpublished opinion (citation to which is disfavored), Bibbs v. Zummer, No. 97- 2112, 1999 WL 68573 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
271:104 Prisoner awarded $100,000 on claim that correctional lieutenant pursued false disciplinary charges against him in retaliation for his filing of a grievance claiming that correctional sergeant was throwing away prisoner's complaints. Maurer v. Patterson, No. 96 Civ. 3273, U.S. Dist. Court, S.D.N.Y., April 28, 1999, reported in The New York Times, p. 41, National Edition (May 1, 1999).
271:105 Failure of defendants to raise defense of prisoner's failure to have disciplinary conviction set aside prior to pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit constituted a waiver of the defense, particularly when defendants only raised defense two years after U.S. Supreme Court had established general rule of the defense and court had already established liability in favor of plaintiff. Carr v. O'Leary, #96-3885, 167 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir. 1999).
265:10 Prison policy of routinely denying inmate requests for live testimony by witnesses in disciplinary hearings violated due process; witnesses were interviewed and a summary of their testimony was presented. Whitlock v. Johnson, #98-1133, 153 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 1998).
266:24 Prison's failure to compel unwilling inmate witnesses to give testimony in disciplinary hearing which concerned only prisoner's custody status, and not the length of his confinement, did not violate prisoner's due process rights. Sylvester v. Hanks, #97-2499, 140 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 1998).
270:90 Federal appeals court rules that it was not clearly established that New York prisoner was entitled to "counsel substitute" at disciplinary hearing. Horne v. Coughlin, #97-2047, 155 F.3d 26 (2nd Cir. 1998).
272:121 District of Columbia did not violate Spanish-speaking prisoners' rights by failing to provide official interpreters for all disciplinary, classification, housing, or other institutional hearings, or by failing to have bilingual medical personnel. Franklin v. District of Columbia, #97-7162, 163 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
255:41 Hearing officer's failure to independently assess the reliability of a confidential informant as to inmate's alleged stabbing of another prisoner constituted a constitutional violation. Gomez v. Kaplan, 964 F.Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
257:75 Prisoner who allegedly threatened to kill correctional officer did not show that officer issued misconduct ticket in retaliation for grievance prisoner had filed against officer several days before regarding another incident. McLaurin v. Cole, 115 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1997). 258:88 Prisoner could not pursue claim for damages over alleged defects in disciplinary proceeding when an award in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and it had not previously been set aside. Lusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 1997). » Editor's Note: For another recent decision holding that a claim that the hearing officer was biased (as well as other procedural defects in a prisoner's disciplinary proceeding) was not actionable in a money damages claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, see Burnell v. Coughlin, 975 F.Supp. 473 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
260:122 Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights claim for damages over prison discipline he claimed was in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights (writing a letter to a magazine with statements about prison employees) when he had not previously had his disciplinary conviction set aside either in state court or through federal habeas relief. Austin v. Ellerd, 957 F.Supp. 182 (E.D.Wis. 1997).
263:166 Prisoner's lawsuit asking for $3,851,000 in damages because he was given a verbal reprimand and prevented from buying snacks at the commissary for two weeks dismissed as malicious and frivolous; discipline resulting in these sanctions did not violate protected due process rights. Moore v. Pemberton, #96- 3715, 110 F.3d 22 (7th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Members of prison disciplinary board liable for compensatory damages of $3,500 and punitive damages of $10,001 on claim that they allowed inmate to be held in segregation for ten days without a determination of guilt on charges that he violated prison rules; evidence showed that segregation was punitive and prison regulations required a hearing within three days. Wilson v. Philadelphia Detention Center, 986 F.Supp. 282 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
241:9 Interest in confidentiality of measures taken to capture escaped inmates was sufficient to justify denying prisoner access to prison internal memoranda in disciplinary hearing concerning his escape. Ryan v. Pico, 642 N.Y.S.2d 436 (A.D. 1996).
241:9 Federal appeals court overturns $3,602.55 damage award to prisoner disciplined for conversation with another inmate as to how he would attempt to obtain handgun after his impending release; prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity for disciplining prisoner based on these facts. Moorman v. Thalacker, 83 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 1996).
242:24 Failure to call previously requested witness at prisoner's disciplinary hearing did not violate his due process rights when prisoner failed to repeat request when given opportunity to do so and failed to object to hearing being closed after his own testimony; prisoner waived his right to call witness by his silence. Bedoya v. Coughlin, 91 F.3d 349 (2nd Cir. 1996).
244:55 Four-day behavior management program, imposed as disciplinary punishment, during which inmates were deprived, for a time, of underwear, mattresses, exercise, and visits, did not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." O'Leary v. Iowa State Men's Reformatory, 79 F.3d 82 (8th Cir. 1996).
244:62 N.Y. prison regulations setting aside some prisoner wages until prisoners are released did not violate any constitutional rights; federal court also upholds regulations imposing a $5 surcharge on such wages after prisoners are found guilty, following a disciplinary hearing, of infractions of prison rules. Rudolph v. Cuomo, 916 F.Supp. 1308 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
246:89 Jail's "de facto" policy of not allowing inmates to call witnesses for live testimony in disciplinary hearings violated due process; prisoner was entitled to compensatory damages, but trial court improperly awarded punitive damages against jail officials in their official capacities, as municipality was immune from punitive damages award. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1996).
246:90 Prisoner could not bring federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages and restoration of good time credits for discipline imposed on him for writing letter containing negative statement about warden, unless disciplinary conviction was first set aside. Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231 (8th Cir. 1996).
247:106 Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights lawsuit for damages over alleged due process violations in prison disciplinary hearing when punishment of loss of good-time credits had not been overturned. Dixon v. Chrans, 101 F.3d 1228 (7th Cir. 1996).
248:127 Update: Federal appeals court affirms trial court ruling upholding N.Y. prison regulations setting aside some prisoner wages until prisoners are released, and imposing $5 surcharge on such wages after prisoners are found guilty of disciplinary offenses. Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1996).
249:131 U.S. Supreme Court rules that prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit challenging procedures used to discipline him was barred when disciplinary result had not previously been invalidated, if a judgment in prisoner's favor would necessarily imply invalidity of the discipline. Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1997 U.S. Lexis 3075 (May 19, 1997).
249:138 Disciplinary hearing officer had no obligation to assist inmate in procuring witnesses. Brown v. Angelone, 938 F.Supp. 340 (W.D. Va. 1996).
[N/R] Demotion of prisoner from administrative segregation to punitive isolation following disciplinary hearing was not "atypical and significant" departure from ordinary prison life and did not violate constitutionally protected liberty interest; failure to follow state procedural rules at disciplinary hearing did not violate federal civil rights. Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640 (8th Cir. 1996).
[N/R] Prisoner's lawsuit against commissioner of state department of corrections over alleged problems with his disciplinary hearing was properly dismissed when it failed to allege that commissioner was in any way personally involved in the hearing. Black v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 72 (2nd Cir. 1996).
237:140 Federal appeals court rules that Washington state prisoner had a protected liberty interest in accumulating good time credits and that the record was not sufficient to determine whether there was a liberty interest in remaining free of disciplinary segregation which was violated by alleged improprieties in disciplinary proceedings. Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1995).
238:156 Regardless of whether way in which disciplinary hearing was held violated inmate's constitutional rights, city could not be held liable in absence of municipal policy or custom causing the violation, and supervisory officials could not be held liable without personal involvement in the incident, or role in creating policy or mismanaging personnel who caused the violation. Perkins v. N.Y. City Dept. of Correction, 887 F.Supp. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
229:4 New York prison hearing officer was not entitled to absolute immunity in suit over prison disciplinary hearing, federal appeals court rules, although qualified immunity may apply. Tulloch v. Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1995).230:24 Prison policy prohibiting inmates confined in special housing unit from being physically present during testimony of favorable witnesses in their disciplinary hearings did not violate constitutional due process. Dawes v. Leonardo, 885 F.Supp. 375 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).
231:41 Disciplining prisoner for expressing "disrespect" to prison guard in written grievance violated First Amendment rights, federal appeals court rules. Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Access to Courts/Legal Info].
232:59 Prison officials entitled to qualified immunity for one-day delay in meeting state imposed deadline for conclusion of prisoner's hearing when they had already transferred him from disciplinary to administrative segregation and prisoner had medical appointments on the day hearing would have otherwise been concluded. Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189 (2nd Cir. 1995). [Cross- reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith) Immunity].
233:74 Federal appeals court rules that trial court erred in dismissing, as frivolous, prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages only for alleged violation of his procedural due process right to call witnesses and present evidence at disciplinary hearing, despite prisoner's failure to exhaust state law remedies or allege that disciplinary decision had been invalidated. Armento-Bey v. Harper, 68 F.3d 215 (8th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Frivolous Lawsuits].
237:137 Despite the absence of verification of reliability of confidential informant statements relied on in prisoner disciplinary hearing, finding of guilt did not violate due process when prisoners's own statement admitted that he had been in a fight with other inmate. Williams v. Fountain, 77 F.3d 372 (11th Cir. 1996).
237:138 Denial of prisoner's request to call inmate witnesses at disciplinary hearing did not violate due process when he was allowed to present their affidavit statements, even if based on general institutional policy of not allowing inmate witnesses from general population to be called at hearings held in segregation unit where plaintiff prisoner was housed. McGuinness v. Dubois, 75 F.3d 794 (1st Cir. 1996).
218:27 Hearing officer's failure to independently determine that confidential informant was credible required annulling of disciplinary determination when informant did not testify at hearing and was not interviewed by hearing officer. Santos v. Coughlin, 608 N.Y.S.2d 337 (A.D. 1994).
219:41 Prisoner was properly found guilty of disciplinary charges of assault even though later acquitted of criminal charges arising from same incident; requiring him to defend himself against disciplinary charges first did not violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the criminal trial. Bellum v. Vose, 848 F.Supp. 1065 (D. Mass. 1994).
219:41 Having the same officer serve as "review officer" determining what level hearing was to be conducted and later as hearing officer did not violate any clearly established constitutional right even if it violated New York state law. Russell v. Selsky, 35 F.3d 55 (2nd Cir. 1994).
220:56 Hearing officer who found prisoners' testimony not credible did not have to explain, in his written report, why; "some evidence" supported his decision to find prisoner guilty of violating prison regulations against possession of cash money based on $100 bill found in his cell, despite his denial of knowledge of it. White v. Kane, 860 F.Supp. 1075 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
220:56 Prisoner was properly found guilty of possession of contraband when a controlled substance was found in an area which he had "substantial control" over, even if not exclusive access. Valentine v. Coughlin, 606 N.Y.S.2d 800 (A.D. 1994).
222:91 Prisoner was not entitled to counsel substitute at disciplinary hearing when the issues presented were not complex and he was able to understand the issues and clearly present his defense. Giles v. State, 511 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1994).
223:102 Statements made by confidential prisoner informants, used in prison disciplinary proceeding, were exempt from disclosure under Michigan state Freedom of Information Act. Hyson v. Dept. of Corrections, 521 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. App. 1994).
223:106 Prisoner had no "clearly established" right to call witnesses from outside the prison community at a disciplinary hearing. Matthews v. Selsky, 870 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
224:121 Prisoner's disciplinary record ordered expunged when hearing officer failed to inquire as to why requested witness (prisoner's alleged accomplice in disciplinary offense) was purportedly unwilling to testify on his behalf. Cordova v. Coughlin, 614 N.Y.S.2d 750 (A.D. 1994).
224:121 Disciplinary hearing improperly found prisoner guilty of participating in assault on officers based on misbehavior report which stated that confidential informants identified prisoner as participant, when there was no basis for hearing officer to determine credibility of informants or reliability of the information. Aponte v. Coughlin, 613 N.Y.S.2d 101 (A.D. 1994).
225:137 N.Y. correctional official who hears administrative appeals of inmate discipline in serious cases was not entitled to absolute "quasi-judicial" immunity, but rather, at most, qualified immunity. Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47 (2nd Cir. 1994).
226:147 U.S. Supreme Court rules that prisoner placed in disciplinary segregation following charges of misconduct was not entitled to due process procedural protections; state regulation simply requiring that disciplinary guilt be supported by substantial evidence did not result in a state-created constitutionally protected "liberty" interest; focus in determining whether state creates a liberty interest to shift from search for mandatory language in state laws or regulations to the nature of the deprivation imposed. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995).
226:154 Prisoner's guilty plea in disciplinary hearing did not bar his challenging discipline in federal civil rights case on grounds that he had no notice of rule which he was charged with violating. Reeves v. Pettcox, 14 F.3d 1060 (5th Cir. 1994).
226:155 Discipline was not supported by "some evidence" when only evidence against prisoner on theft charge was confidential informant statements, the reliability of which were not determined, and there was evidence that other prisoners, but not the accused, had access to the area in which the theft occurred during the relevant time. Gilbert v. Selsky, 867 F.Supp. 159 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
227:171 Discovery of metal weapon hidden in bed leg in cell was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that prisoner in cell possessed the weapon, when he had been placed in cell fairly recently and cell had not been searched before prior occupant was moved out. Varela v. Coughlin, 610 N.Y.S.2d 103 (A.D. 1994).
[N/R] Hearing officer's consultation with more experienced hearing officer regarding issue concerning drug testing did not violate inmate's due process rights. Grillo v. Coughlin, 31 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 1994).
[N/R] Hearing officer's failure to disclose or summarize in written decision exhibits considered in camera in reaching decision did not violate due process. Henderson v. U.S. Parole Comn., 13 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 1994).
Prisoner disciplined for involvement in fight was entitled to be supplied with incident reports concerning other prisoners, to the extent they concerned the same incident and referred to his own activities, in the absence of any showing that their disclosure would be "unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals." Cowart v. Coughlin, 597 N.Y.S.2d 821 (A.D. 1993).
Prison disciplinary committee correctly used "some evidence" evidentiary standard in finding prisoner guilty of rule violations; disciplining prisoner for making crude statement about correctional officer to another inmate did not violate his First Amendment rights. Goff v. Dailey, 991 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1993).
Prison employees did not violate prisoner's rights by failing, following an incident in which he was involved, to quickly interview all possible witnesses so as to make it easier for him to locate possible witnesses to call in his disciplinary hearing. Delgado v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Correction, 842 F.Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Prisoner's due process rights were not violated by prison's failure to have present, at disciplinary hearing, contraband found in his cell and officer who searched his cell, as he requested. Chesson v. Jaquez, 986 F.2d 363 (10th Cir. 1993).
Failure to give Massachusetts jail inmates advance notice of disciplinary hearings or a copy of hearing board's written decisions violated their due process rights. O'Malley v. Sheriff of Worcester Co., 415 Mass. 132, 612 N.E.2d 641 (1993).
Policy of automatically charging prisoners with giving false information when their allegations of assault against correctional officers were found insufficient for the bringing of criminal charges and insufficient to provide conclusive evidence of an assault did not violate First Amendment rights of prisoner, but were finding that prosecution of officers did not occur was insufficient evidence at disciplinary hearing to support finding of guilt. Nicholson v. Moran, 835 F.Supp. 692 (D.R.I. 1993).
Prisoner's due process rights were not violated by prison's failure to have present, at disciplinary hearing, contraband found in his cell and officer who searched his cell, as he requested. Chesson v. Jaquez, 986 F.2d 363 (10th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner's rights were violated when hearing officer refused inmate's request that prison employee be called as a witness in his disciplinary hearing in support of his defense that charges were filed against him as a retaliatory measure. Adams v. Coughlin, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461 (A.D. 1994).
Discipline was legally imposed upon prisoner on basis of one-in-six chance of actual guilt of possession of stolen property found in work area containing him and five other prisoners, since there was "some evidence" supporting the determination. Harms v. Godinez, 829 F.Supp. 259 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
Prisoner who threw urine, milk, and feces on prison guard, spit on guard, and threatened to kill him did not commit an "assault" as defined in D.C. prison rules, federal court rules. Brown v. District of Columbia, 822 F.Supp. 17 (D.D.C. 1993).
Inmate accused of violating rules prohibiting rioting did not have his due process rights violated by disciplinary hearing; inmate admitted he was out of his exercise area during disturbance and videotape evidence confirmed this. Salcedo v. Coughlin, 593 N.Y.S.2d 888 (A.D. 1993).
Prisoner should not have been found guilty of unauthorized possession of personal property after hearing apparently accepted his statement that correctional officer at another facility had authorized his alteration of item in question. Murray v. Mann, 598 N.Y.S.2d 373 (A.D. 1993).
Prisoner had not Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in prison disciplinary setting. Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993).
Fact that misconduct report was written by an officer other than the one who found the contraband in prisoner's cell did not violate prisoner's right to due process; prisoner's rights were not violated at hearing by requirement that he present his version of events first. Brandon v. Dept. of Corrections, 865 P.2d 87 (Alaska, 1993).
Prisoner should not have been found guilty of "fighting" when evidence showed that he only swung a water bucket at another inmate to defend himself from an unprovoked attack. Varela v. Coughlin, 606 N.Y.S.2d 109 (A.D. 1993).
Prisoner was properly found guilty of violating disciplinary rules prohibiting fighting despite acquittal of criminal charges arising out of incident in which he struck another prisoner. Rogers v. Mitchell, 599 N.Y.S.2d 646 (A.D. 1993). Failure of hearing officer to determine reason why inmate witness accused inmate sought to call was refusing to testify violated accused's constitutional right to call witnesses, and required overturning of discipline imposed. Contras v. Coughlin, 604 N.Y.S.2d 651 (A.D. 1993).
Four-hour lockup of prisoner for minor rule violation did not violate due process despite sanction being chosen by person who issued disciplinary notice. Boutchee v. Grossheim, 11 F.3d 101 (8th Cir. 1993).
Disciplinary determination that N.Y. prisoner engaged in ten incidents of harassing behavior annulled when misconduct report failed to specify dates and times of any of these incidents, violating state regulation and depriving prisoner of the ability to prepare a defense. Davis v. Coughlin, 607 N.Y.S.2d 172 (A.D. 1994).
Vermont Supreme Court rejects "some evidence" evidentiary standard for fact finders in prison disciplinary hearings, and rules that "preponderance of the evidence" standard is required to satisfy due process under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. LaFaso v. Patrissi, 633 A.2d 695 (Vt. 1993).
Prisoner's discipline overturned when record showed that hearing officer had written and dated disposition prior to any testimony being received in the hearing; predetermination of prisoner's guilt denied him a fair and impartial hearing. Nicholas v. Mantello, 606 N.Y.S.2d 102 (A.D. 1993).
Discipline of prisoner for alleged involvement in escape attempt based on uncorroborated second-hand report of confidential informant's statement violated due process when report said informant took polygraph exam and accused prisoner's request to also take polygraph exams was refused. Engel v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, 636 A.2d 1058 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1994).
Federal appeals court upholds disciplinary committee's use of "some evidence" standard to find prisoner guilty of rule violation; rejects prisoner's argument the "preponderance of the evidence" standard was required to find him guilty. Hrbek v. Nix, 12 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 1993).
N.Y. appeals court holds that expungement of disciplinary determination, rather than rehearing, was the required remedy when inmate's due process rights to call a witness and be present at a disciplinary hearing were violated. Weiss v. Coughlin, 604 N.Y.S.2d 654 (A.D. 1993).
Prisoner's rights were not violated by hearing officer's refusal to grant a continuance for the purported purpose of producing evidence of an Internal Affairs investigation allegedly containing a polygraph test showing that female officer was not telling the truth about prisoner disobeying her order to stop masturbating at his cell door. Thomas v. Crow, 862 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. App. 1993).
Prisoner did not have a clearly established right, in March of 1985, to have disciplinary hearing officer make independent assessment of reliability of confidential informants who allegedly told correctional officers that he had assaulted another prisoner. Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616 (2nd Cir. 1993).
Disciplinary determination against N.Y. prisoner for possession of a weapon overturned by appeals court because officer conducting search of prisoner's cell violated departmental directive that prisoner should be allowed to observe the search. Patterson v. Coughlin, 604 N.Y.S.2d 458 (A.D. 1993).
Prisoner's due process rights were not violated when he was denied request to call seven of the fourteen witnesses he wanted at disciplinary hearing; hearing officer rationally determined that additional witnesses' testimony would merely be "cumulative." Young v. Freer, 829 F.Supp. 32 (N.D. N.Y. 1993).
Failure to call, as witnesses, two inmates involved in fight with prisoner being disciplined for attacking them, did not violate prisoner's constitutional rights when both prospective witnesses indicated they would refuse to testify and it was reasonable to conclude that calling them as witnesses would be "futile." Silva v. Casey, 992 F.2d 20 (2nd Cir. 1993).
Prisoner disciplined for involvement in fight was entitled to be supplied with incident reports concerning other prisoners, to the extent they concerned the same incident and referred to his own activities, in the absence of any showing that their disclosure would be "unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals." Cowart v. Coughlin, 597 N.Y.S.2d 821 (A.D. 1993).
Refusal to call witnesses prisoner requested was reasonable when they were locked in their cells at the time of the incident in question and could not have observed it; officer's testimony that liquid thrown smelled like urine supported discipline against prisoner for assaulting officers and committing an "unhygienic act." Samuels v. Coughlin, 594 N.Y.S.2d 896 (A.D. 1993).
Prison disciplinary committee correctly used "some evidence" evidentiary standard in finding prisoner guilty of rule violations; disciplining prisoner for making crude statement about correctional officer to another inmate did not violate his First Amendment rights. Goff v. Dailey, 991 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1993).
Disciplinary hearing's determination that prisoner violated rule against having weapons was adequately supported by misbehavior report, videotape of incident, and photograph showing what correctional officer believed to be weapons in prisoner's possession. Shakur v. Coughlin, 582 N.Y.S.2d 302 (A.D. 1992).
Disciplinary hearing's determination that prisoner violated rule against unauthorized religious gatherings was supported by sufficient evidence, including prisoner's possession of a Muslim prayer book when frisked while gathering with other prisoners. Coleman v. Harko, 583 N.Y.S.2d 651 (A.D. 1992).
Prisoner was denied due process when hearing officer refused to either grant his request to call another prisoner to present live testimony or to cite legitimate reasons why that witness should not or could not be presented. Dept. of Corrections v. Marshall, 618 So.2d 777 (Fla. App. 1993).
Prisoner was entitled to a new disciplinary hearing when hearing officer failed to determine whether a fellow inmate he wanted to call as a witness was willing to testify, or if not, the basis for the refusal. Johnson v. Coughlin, 582 N.Y.S.2d 831 (A.D. 1992). Finding of six weapons in cell occupied by an inmate constituted "some evidence" sufficient to support discipline for possession of contraband, despite inmate's claim that other prisoner had access to the cell and that he knew nothing about the weapons. Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner had no right to disclosure of investigator's confidential file concerning his alleged fraudulent money order scheme; he was given adequate notice of the facts on which the charges against him were based and also had no constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the investigator. Rasheed- Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1992).
Administrative reversal of discipline imposed without calling inmate's witnesses cured any procedural due process defect, and inmate was accordingly not entitled to any damages. Young v. Hoffman, 970 F.2d 1154 (2nd Cir. 1992).
Inmate was entitled to retain possession of written misconduct reports for 24 hours prior to disciplinary hearing, and failure to allow such possession violated constitutional right to due process; prison officials were entitled, however, to qualified immunity from damages because law on the subject was not clearly established before this decision. Benitez v. Wolff, 985 F.2d 662 (2nd Cir. 1993).
Use of "some evidence" rather than "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof in disciplinary proceeding violated due process, but prisoner was only entitled to $1 in nominal damages, since the facts in the case were "not in dispute." Goff v. Dailey, 789 F.Supp. 978 (S.D. Iowa 1992).
Correctional officials did not violate the due process rights of prisoner charged with possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages when they discarded beverages found in his cell prior to disciplinary hearing; officials did not act in bad faith or for the purpose of preventing the use of the beverages for exculpatory purposes. Griffin v. Spratt, 969 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1992).
Prisoner who was given an opportunity to orally testify at his disciplinary hearing, but refused to do so, had no due process right to submit a written statement of his version of the events in question. Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1992).
Determination that prisoner took place in cafeteria disturbance, in the absence of any evidence of the prisoner's individual actions, violated his due process rights; discipline could not be based merely on his presence there; hearing officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability and was liable for $18,000 in damages. Zavaro v. Coughlin, 970 F.2d 1148 (2nd Cir. 1992).
An inmate's removal from a prison disciplinary hearing after he refused to give the hearing panel his name and prison number did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination; there was no indication that such answers would be self-incriminating, and his obstruction of the hearing undermined discipline and order. Battle v. Barton, 970 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1992).
Prison disciplinary determination annulled when hearing officer lacked an independent basis for assessing the credibility of a confidential informant who did not testify at the hearing. Huggins v. Coughlin, 584 N.Y.S.2d 341 (A.D. 1992).
Disciplining of prisoner for refusal to take psychological stress evaluation to determine possible involvement in escape plan did not violate his right against self-incrimination. Tate v. Mantle, 835 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. App. 1992).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that prisoners challenging disciplinary hearing and seeking restoration of lost good-time credits, among other remedies, need not exhaust state law administrative remedies before proceeding with a federal civil rights lawsuit. Sisk v. CSO Branch, 974 F.2d 116 (9th Cir. 1992).
Inmate was only entitled to nominal damages of $1 for withholding of pertinent information prior to disciplinary hearing, when evidence showed that he would have been disciplined anyway even if he had known the information. Shango v. Jurich, 965 F.2d 289 (7th Cir. 1992).
Testimony of investigating officer regarding information supplied by confidential informant was sufficiently detailed and specific to allow hearing officer to make an independent assessment of informant's credibility. Lopez v. Lacy, 584 N.Y.S.2d 340 (A.D. 1992).
Discipline of prisoner for fighting upheld; conflicting testimony of inmates and correctional officers as to whether prisoner was involved in the fight only raised a credibility issue for the hearing officer to resolve and sufficient evidence supported the determination reached. Fortune v. Coughlin, 583 N.Y.S.2d 586 (A.D. 1992).
Prisoner could be found guilty of disciplinary charge of possessing contraband for having a map of surrounding area when prison rules defined contraband as "any article" not authorized by superintendent; his hiding of map was evidence he knew it was contraband. Coughlin, 584 N.Y.S.2d 670 (A.D. 1992).
Discipline of inmate who set fire and assaulted officer overturned because he had not yet received a copy of the correctional institution's rules. People Ex Rel. Gayle v. Koehler, 583 N.Y.S. 415 (A.D. 1992).
Disciplinary proceeding's determination that inmate participated in stabbing death of another prisoner was supported by substantial evidence, including statement of confidential informant; prisoner's due process rights were not violated by inability to obtain autopsy report of deceased victim of attack. Ruiz v. Coughlin III, 584 N.Y.S.2d 224 (A.D. 1992).
Prison authorities' failure to supply prisoner with a lab report concerning pills seized from him was not a violation of due process when lab report was not used in disciplinary proceeding and pills seized were clearly marked "valium", indicating a contraband controlled substance. Holt v. Caspari, 961 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner had no constitutional right to a polygraph examination or administration of sodium pentothal to prove his veracity in prison disciplinary proceeding, nor was he constitutionally entitled to insist on a fingerprint analysis of a weapon found in his cell which he contended was not his. Flanagan v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 784 F.Supp. 178 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
Prison official liable for $3,600 to inmate; sitting on disciplinary committee when she had been involved in directing that the disciplinary charge be made violated inmate's due process rights. Diercks v. Durham, 959 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1992).
Discipline of prisoner based on statement by confidential informant who did not appear at hearing was sufficiently supported by evidence when tape recording of informant's statement was played and documents found in prisoner's cell corroborated statement. Rosario v. Leonardo, 581 N.Y.S.2d 483 (A.D. 1992).
Failure to follow state rule, in Louisiana, requiring taping of inmate disciplinary hearing, required new hearing when inmate claimed he was denied the right, at his hearing, to call witnesses and engage in cross-examination of his accuser. Flowers v. Phelps, 595 So.2d 668 (La. App. 1991).
State court's ruling that prisoner's constitution rights were not violated in prison disciplinary action barred the prisoner from relitigating the same claims in a federal civil rights suit for money damages. Gross v. Heikien, 957 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated by the failure to denote an incident report as "disciplinary or informational" or by the failure to record the deliberations of the disciplinary committee. Hertz v. Moses, 823 P.2d 1247 (Alaska 1992).
Inmate accused, in disciplinary proceeding of "forcible sexual misconduct," had no due process right to be given a polygraph examination or to call character witnesses in the disciplinary hearing. Wright v. Caspari, 779 F.Supp. 1025 (E.D. Mo. 1992).
Inmate had no statutory or constitutional right to be present at disciplinary hearing during testimony of prison clergyman called as witness by hearing officer. Graham v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Services, 577 N.Y.S.2d 728 (A.D. 1991).
Evidence was sufficient to support discipline of prisoner for making sexually harassing calls to female teacher. Redd v. Kuhlmann, 576 N.Y.S.2d 418 (A.D. 1991).
Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for policy of barring the testimony, in disciplinary hearings, of prison monitor. Smith v. Coughlin, 938 F.2d 19 (2nd Cir. 1991).
Inmate was entitled to new disciplinary hearing when he was not told his accuser's name and correctional authorities gave no reason for the failure to disclose that information. Shea v. Edwards, 581 N.E.2d 822 (Ill. App. 1991).
Disciplinary hearing determination that prisoner violated rules concerning the use of credit card was not supported by substantial evidence. Kennedy v. Coughlin, 568 N.Y.S.2d 461 (A.D. 1991).
Lack of an interpreter during a disciplinary hearing did not violate due process when inmate failed to request one during the course of the hearing, or during an administrative appeal. Maldonado v. Racette, 573 N.Y.S.2d 544 (A.D. 1991).
Prison officials did not violate inmate's rights by failure to give Miranda warnings before questioning during investigation of rule infraction. Bradley v. State, 473 N.W.2d 224 (Iowa 1991).
Inmate waived his right to call witnesses at disciplinary hearing when he walked out of hearing without specifically objecting to requested witness; absence or failure to produce a written statement by witness. Saenz v. Murphy, 469 N.W.2d 611 (Wis. 1991).
Prison policy prohibiting inmates from calling staff members as witnesses in disciplinary proceedings violates due process, but plaintiff inmate's rights were not violated since this refusal was not based on that policy, but on inmate's own refusal to submit written questions. Ramer v. Kerby, 936 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1991).
Failure to let inmate know exact penalty possible for rule violation did not make his guilty plea "unknowing" but further hearings are ordered to determine whether sanction should be reduced. Heide v. OSCI, 107 Or. App. 445, 812 P.2d 35 (1991).
Misbehavior reports stating that all of 130-140 inmates present in a mess hall participated in a disturbance were not "substantial evidence" of inmates' participation in "violent group conduct." Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 N.Y. 2d 642, 569 N.Y.S.2d 582, 572 N.E.2d 23 (1991).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for taking disciplinary action against inmate which was supported by "no evidence." Engel v. Wendl, 921 F.2d 148 (8th Cir. 1990).
Misbehavior report, written by officer who did not see incident but interviewed alleged victim of assault, was substantial evidence sufficient to support disciplinary action, even when victim recanted statement. Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y. 2d 964, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728 (1990).
Federal appeals court holds that prisoner cannot sue for retaliatory discipline when the alleged retaliation arose from discipline "imparted for acts that a prisoner was not entitled to perform." Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1990).
Finding a razor blade in a prisoner's cell provided substantial evidence sufficient to support a finding of violation of a disciplinary rule, even though others may have had access to the cell. Stoll v. Coughlin, 569 N.Y.S.2d 516 (A.D. 1991).
Inmate awarded $250 in damages for time in disciplinary detention following hearing at which prison officials violated his due process right to call witnesses. Moran v. Farrier, 924 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1991).
Inmate's statement to officer that he would "do a year in the box and then come out strong on you" violated prison rule against making threats. Nieves v. Coughlin, 550 N.Y.S.2d 205 (A.D. 1990).
Application of Iowa disciplinary rules to prisoner transferred from Kansas to complete sentence did not violate equal protection, due process, or Interstate Corrections Compact. Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1991).
Magistrate should not have ordered total disclosure to inmate's lawyer of report containing names of prison informants who implicated inmate in prison murder without considering protective measures. Wagner v. Henman, 902 F.2d 578 (7th Cir. 1990).
There was "some evidence" to support discipline of prisoner for having contraband in locker he shared with another inmate, despite other inmate's statement that the contraband was his. Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990).
Prisoner's rights were not violated by denial of access to use of force report and Sergeant's report relied on by hearing officer to determine his guilt, since he had access to all the relevant information in another document. Hight v. Coughlin, 557 N.Y.S.2d 635 (A.D. 1990).
Conducting telephone interviews with former riot hostages and other prison employees was reasonable for purposes of institutional security and swift completion of hearings for thirty-two inmates. Torres v. Coughlin, 557 N.Y.S.2d 636 (A.D. 1990).
Inmate could not be found guilty of violating a prison rule of which he had no actual knowledge; inmate's conviction of possessing contraband overturned, despite his guilty plea. Shakoor v. Coughlin, 560 N.Y.S.2d 528 (A.D. 1990).
The mere fact that all three disciplinary committee members witnessed the incident in question did not deprive the inmate of a fair hearing; but inmate whose urine tested negative for alcohol was entitled to production of the test results at the hearing. Martin v. State, 562 So.2d 294 (Ala. Cr. app. 1990).
Hearing officer need not disqualify himself merely because he had previously found inmate guilty of unrelated charges and knew that inmate had appealed those determinations. Aviles v. Scully, 556 N.Y.S.2d 155 (A.D. 1990).
Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for refusing to assist inmate in preparations for disciplinary hearing and for failure to call all witnesses he desired to have appear there. Fox v. Coughlin, 893 F.2d 475 (2nd Cir. 1990).
Testimony of officer that inmate was in possession of green leafy substance believed to be marijuana was insufficient to support disciplinary sanctions; there was no showing that officer was qualified to state opinion that substance was marijuana. Wakefield v. State, 562 So.2d 1364 (Ala. Cr. App. 1990).
Court tells inmate twice: throwing liquids (whether milk or urine) at correctional officers is an assault in violation of prison disciplinary rules. (And so was spitting at an officer). Hop Wah v. Coughlin, 558 N.Y.S.2d 235 (A.D. 1990); Hop Wah v. Coughlin, 558 N.Y.S.2d 228 (A.D. 1990); Hop Wah v. Coughlin, 553 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1990).
Refusal of prison to assist inmate in determining the names of prisoners who were present during conduct charged as disciplinary violation interfered with inmate's right to call witnesses; new hearing granted. Mendola v. Parole Violators' Prison, 102 Or. App. 187, 793 P.2d 343 (Or. App. 1990).
Use of unsworn statement of confidential informant against prisoner at disciplinary hearing did not violate due process. Baker v. Lyles, 904 F.2d 925 (4th Cir. 1990).
Hearing witnesses via telephone did not violate due process during hearing on inmate's alleged rape of another prisoner. Matter of Plunkett, 788 P.2d 1090 (Wash. App. 1990).
Mere failure to disassociate himself from disturbance was insufficient to find prisoner guilty of disruptive behavior. Murphy v. OSCI, 101 Or. App. 354, 790 P.2d 1179 (1990).
Prisoner waived his right to be present at disciplinary hearing when he refused to be handcuffed. Jihad v. Mann, 553 N.Y.S.2d 235 (A.D. 1990).
Prisoner's failure to object to employee who filed misbehavior report serving as hearing officer precluded raising issue in appeals court. Benitez v. Coughlin, 552 N.Y.S.2d 754 (A.D. 1990).
Rule prohibiting assault could properly be applied to spitting on correctional officer. Hop Wah v. Coughlin, 553 N.Y.S.2d 886 (A.D. 1990).
Prison could not rely on safety concerns in refusing to provide identity of those accusing prisoner of disciplinary charges and details of offenses unless explicitly stating so in notice to inmate. Thompson v. Lane, 551 N.E.2d 731 (Ill. App. 1990).
No determination of risk of harm from calling witness required before denying prisoner's request to call witness solely for purpose of confrontation or impeachment. Owens v. Libhart, 729 F.Supp. 1510 (M.D. Pa. 1990).
Prisoner could not be found guilty of setting fire in cell on sole basis of controverted testimony by officer who was not present when fire began. Deresky v. Scully, 548 N.Y.S.2d 318 (A.D. 1989).
Prison enjoined from conducting phone interviews with witnesses during disciplinary hearings without allowing inmate to hear phone conversation or question witness. Balla v. Murphy, 775 P.2d 149 (Idaho App. 1989).
Officer's misbehavior report was not substantial evidence of violation of prison rule when he did not witness incident. McIntosh v. Coughlin, 547 N.Y.S.2d 470 (A.D. 1989).
Prisoner was entitled to have investigating officer called as witness at hearing and to have independent evaluation of confidential informant's allegations. Gittens v. Sullivan, 720 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Spanish-speaking inmate did not establish grounds for overturning disciplinary determination made following his absence from hearing. Pedrosa v. Senkowski, 549 N.Y.S.2d 894 (A.D. 1990).
Professional hearing officer was entitled to absolute immunity from liability; allegation of general harassment by corrections officer did not state constitutional violation. Banks v. Klapish, 717 F.Supp. 520 (W.D. Mich. 1989).
Admission of polygraph results in disciplinary hearing was harmless error where inmate admitted the consensual sexual act charged. Stephens v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 778 P.2d 512 (Or. App. 1989).
Prisoner had a right to be present during examination of witnesses on his behalf, in the absence of a valid reason for refusal. Young v. Kihl, 720 F.Supp. 22 (W.D.N.Y. 1989).
Failure to provide inmate with a copy of his confession prior to disciplinary hearing violated due process. Washington v. Hoke, 544 N.Y.S.2d 942 (Supp. 1989).
Destruction of videotape recording misbehavior incident was not bad faith but reasonable policy of tape reuse. Espinal v. Coughlin, 544 N.Y.S.2d 897 (A.D. 1989).
Allegation that counselor who initiated criminal escape charges against prisoner sat as chairman of disciplinary committee stated due process violation. Epstein v. Lane, 544 N.E.2d 819 (Ill. App. 1989).
Claim that prison officer cited inmate for misconduct after he filed grievance did not state due process violation. Williams v. Smith, 717 F.Supp. 523 (W.D. Mich. 1989).
Prison disciplinary rules did not apply to inmate's conduct while on escape status; could not be disciplined for assault and robbery of store clerk. Alexander v. OSP, 783 P.2d 1034 (Or. App. 1989).
While polygraph evidence was admissible in a prison disciplinary proceeding, it was insufficient, standing alone, to support finding of aiding escape; but prison officials get qualified immunity from liability. Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1989).
Prisoner awarded $5,300 for his wrongful confinement in special housing unit after hearing at which his witnesses were not called. Patterson v. Coughlin, 722 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.N.Y. 1989).
Polygraph evidence was admissible in disciplinary proceeding where inmate requested test; evidence showed inmate to be "escape prone." Snow v. OSP, 780 P.2d 215 (Or. 1989).
Prison official need not personally see sexual assault to support disciplinary action against inmate. Rudd v. Sargent, 866 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1989).
Spitting was not an assault; accused inmate could be barred from hearing during testimony of other prisoners because of security concerns. Holmes v. Coughlin, 543 N.Y.S.2d 587 (A.D. 1989).
Inmate was entitled to hearing as to why videotape recording of alleged offense referred to in misbehavior report was unavailable. Espinal v. Coughlin, 540 N.Y.S.2d 590 (A.D. 1989).
Inmate was improperly denied right to call witnesses at disciplinary hearing; his waiver of this right after being told he could only call one or two witnesses was ineffective. Santiago v. Coughlin, 542 N.Y.S.2d 904 (Sup. Ct. 1988).
Rehearing of disciplinary charges after inmate's initial exoneration does not violate double jeopardy clause. Gorman v. Moody, 710 F.Supp. 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1989).
Requirement that prisoner select assistant to help with his defense from list limited to correctional officers did not violate due process. Scott v. Kelly, 533 N.Y.S.2d 157 (A.D. 1988).
Inmate's constitutional right to prepare defense in hearing violated when "assistant" provided no assistance whatsoever. Giano v. Sullivan, 709 F.Supp. 1209 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Regulation creating rebuttable presumption of involvement of inmate in multiple inmate cell when infraction occurs in cell did not violate due process. Petition of Anderson, 772 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1989). Hearing officer should have made findings of reliability of confidential informant and of facts supporting conclusion prisoner attempted sexual activity with fellow inmate. Red v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 773 P.2d 5 (Or. App. 1989).
All right to take other inmates' testimony outside of charged inmates presence when security threat would exist otherwise. Bernacet v. Coughlin, 535 N.Y.S.2d 785 (A.D. 1988).
Hearing officer's failure to independently assess credibility of informant deprived inmate of due process. Nelson v. Coughlin, 538 N.Y.S.2d 360 (A.D. 1989).
Use of inmate "refusal forms" to bar calling of witnesses, absent indication of lack of knowledge, violated right to call witnesses. Williams v. Coughlin, 535 N.Y.S.2d 499 (A.D. 1988).
Prisoner can sue for retaliatory discipline for filing grievances even if he had no constitutional right to a grievance procedure. Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1989).
State administrative code gave inmate liberty interest in not having minor disciplinary reports upgraded to major status without explanation. Staples v. Young, 679 F.Supp. 884 (W.D. Wis. 1988).
Disciplinary charges were supported by substantial evidence despite fact that officer preparing misbehavior report did not witness assault he described in detail. Colon v. Coughlin, 537 N.Y.S.2d 680 (A.D. 1989).
Mental competence or illness of prisoner with well- documented history of psychiatric problems must be considered during disciplinary proceeding. People Ex Rel Reed v. Scully, 531 N.Y.S.2d 196 (Supp. 1988).
Merely "pushing away" other inmate who attacked him did not establish prisoner's violation of rule against "fighting." Parker v. Kelly, 529 N.Y.S.2d (A.D. 1988).
Disciplinary hearing officer being sued by inmate for actions in prior hearing need not refuse to hear case, unless "actual prejudice" is shown. In the Matter of Grant, 537 N.Y.S.2d 323 (A.D. 1989).
Fact that inmate's shorts rode up on his legs, exposing his genitals while he was lying in bed, was insufficient to sustain disciplinary charges. Acevedo v. Hernandez, 532 N.Y.S.2d 423 (A.D. 1988).
Prisoner's request for identity of confidential informant in disciplinary proceeding was properly denied. McClean v. Le Fevre, 531 N.Y.S.2d 411 (A.D. 1988).
Failure to identify any prison rule putting portions of mess hall off-limits precluded discipline of prisoner for violation. Montgomery v. Kelly, 526 N.Y.S.2d 274 (A.D. 1988).
Prisoner not required to receive rule book in Chinese simply because he was more comfortable speaking that language. Wong v. Coughlin, 526 N.Y.S.2d 640 (A.D. 1988).
New York's highest court holds prison employees conducting formal disciplinary proceedings entitle state to absolute immunity. Arteaga v. State, 72 N.Y. 2d 212, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1988).
Indiana supreme court finds prisoners have no right to judicial review of prison discipline. Hasty v. Broglin, 531 N.E.2d 200 (Ind. 1988).
Even if inmate's rights were violated by limiting ability to call witnesses, expungement of record was not appropriate. Feagin v. Broglin, 693 F.Supp. 741 (N.D. Ind. 1988).
Hearing Officer improperly refused to watch videotape of incident upon which discipline was based, so further hearing ordered. Smith v. Coughlin, 525 N.Y.S.2d 360 (A.D. 1988).
Inmate given procedural due process cannot maintain civil rights suit based on claim that he was falsely accused. Wilson v. Maben, 676 F.Supp. 581 (M.D. Pa. 1987).
Prison hearing officer was entitled to absolute judicial immunity in inmate civil rights claim. Shelly v. Johnson, 849 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1988).
Prisoner seeking review of disciplinary action could not swear to petition before fellow inmate when notary public was available. Salahuddin v. LeFevre, 525 N.Y.S.2d 359 (A.D. 1988).
Inmate properly found guilty of possessing contraband upon basis of two positive drug tests, although urine sample was not tested for 30 days. Brown v. Scully, 524 N.Y.S.2d 486 (A.D. 1988).
Disciplinary action on inmate reversed because hearing officer did not explicitly find that eyewitnesses were reliable. Billings v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 88 Or. App. 231, 744 P.2d 1331 (1987).
Test results of marijuana improperly utilized at hearing where chain of custody of evidence not shown. In the Matter of Tal v. Scully, 527 N.Y.S.2d 340 (Sup. Ct. 1988).
Oregon court allows admission of polygraph test results as some evidence of credibility in disciplinary hearings. Nelson v. OSCI, 89 Or. App. 671, 750 P.2d 184 (1988); Branton v. OSP, 89 Or. App. 597, 750 P.2d 183 (1988).
Inmate was denied due process by father-son relationship between hearing examiner and officer who began proceedings. Vines v. Howard, 676 F.Supp. 608 (E.D. Pa. 1987).
Single positive "EMIT" drug test "some evidence" of marijuana use -- sufficient to uphold prison disciplinary action. Petition of Johnston, 109 Wash. 493, 745 P.2d 864 (1987).
Hearing officer could justifiably disregard inmate's "incredible" testimony and find him guilty of gambling. Andrews v. Kelly, 522 N.Y.S.2d 43 (A.D. 1987).
Failure to include names of informants or dates of incidents in notice of disciplinary charges did not violate due process; polygraph can be used to show reliability. Gilhaus v. Wilson, 734 S.W.2d 808 (Ky. App. 1987).
Prison officials entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by prisoner disciplined for sexual assault on nurse who contradicted earlier account. Turney v. Scroggy, 831 F.2d 135 (6th Cir. 1987).
Failed polygraph examination should not have been relied on for guilt by hearing officer in discipline case; results could be used to impeach testimony. Parker v. Oregon State Correctional Institution, 87 Or. App. 354, 742 P.2d 617 (Or. App. 1987).
Oregon appeals court reviews five cases on whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate unnamed informants' statements used by hearing officers. Solar v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 87 Or. App. 222, 742 P.2d 611 (Or. App. 1987).
Discipline of inmate for writing letter complaining about "seductive" search of his visitor by female guard violated first amendment. Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F.2d 1266 (3d Cir. 1987).
Refusal to allow inmate to call thirteen witnesses did not violate due process. Malek v. Camp, 822 F.2d 812 (8th Cir. 1987).
Violation of state law procedural requirement is not grounds for federal civil rights lawsuit. LaBoy v. Coughlin, 822 F.2d 3 (2d Cir. 1987).
Prisoner's admission that he refused to attend disciplinary hearing waived right to challenge determination. Watson v. Coughlin, 517 N.Y.S.2d 620 (A.D. 1987).
Uncorroborated hearsay statements of informant that prisoner was involved in escape plot were insufficient for disciplinary action. Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1987).
Prisoner's unjustified refusal to work or participate in programs was adeqaute reason to assign to keep-lock status. Ronson v. Commissioner of Corrections of State of New York, 518 N.Y.S.2d 206 (A.D. 1987).
Discovery of revolver in package intended for inmate was insufficient to show that inmate violated prison rules. Sanchez v. Coughlin, 518 N.Y.S.2d 456 (A.D. 1987).
Decision to reclassify prisoner was clearly justified on basis of numerous infractions. Young v. Jenne, 661 F.Supp. 1 (S.D. Miss. 1986).
Abuse of official discretion not to remove notations from prisoner's records after charges of rule infractions were dismissed. Garrett v. Coughlin, 516 N.Y.S.2d 796 (A.D. 1987).
Lawsuit challenging disciplinary sanctions and seeking restoration of "good time" was, in essence, habeas corpus action and barred when state remedies were not exhausted. Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395 (3rd Cir. 1987).
Dual role as investigative officer and hearing officer at inmate's disciplinary proceeding no basis for imposing liability. Bolden v. Alston, 810 F.2d 353 (2nd Cir. 1987).
Inmate's complaint that a guard issued a false disciplinary report against him for his calling a woman a prostitute was frivolous. Bell v. Lane, 657 F.Supp. 815 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Denying inmate water for refusing to work not cruel and unusual punishment. Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318 (11th cir. 1987).
Guard's filing false charges against inmate not a constitutional violation; no recovery under Section 1983. Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 929 (2nd Cir. 1986).
"Unusual incident report" must be supplied at disciplinary hearing. Allison v. LeFevre, 512 N.Y.S.2d 289 (Clinton Co., N.Y. 1987).
Prison disciplinary committee's statement of evidence can be brief if the charges are simple; more complex accusations require more detailed statement, explains court. Saenz v. Young, 811 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1987).
Proper method of challenging orientation handbook is through normal grievance procedure, not a chapter 120 proceeding. Harris v. Department of Corrections, 499 So.2d 9 (Fla. App. 1986).
Misbehavior reports must be made by correctional officers, not parole officers. Main v. Coughlin, 509 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (Wyoming Co. Supreme Court 1986).
California Supreme Court rules neither federal or state due process requires hearing officers to interview confidential informants in camera before finding inmate guilty of disciplinary violation. In re Jackson, 233 Cal.Rptr. 911 (Cal. 1987).
Two positive "EMIT" tests were insufficient basis for discipline. Lahey v. Kelly, 510 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 4 Dept. 1986).
Inmate found guilty of tearing elastic band from shorts to "fish" in sewage system for drugs. Coakley v. Oregon State Correctional Institution, 730 P.2d 622 (Ore. App. 1986).
Witness not forced to testify. Barnes v. LeFevre, 500 N.Y.S.2d 201 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
Disciplinary hearing annulled due to procedural violations committed by inmate assistant. Brooks v. Scully, 504 N.Y.S.2d 387 (Dutchess Co. 1986).
Inmate found guilty in scam. Smith v. LeFevre, 497 N.Y.S.2d 174 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
Urinalysis test results inadmissible. Cornish v. Coughlin, 505 N.Y.S.2d 255 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
Failure to urinate after three hours grounds for punishment. Pabon v. LeFevre, 508 N.Y.S. 95 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
Error to discipline inmate for possessing bomb. Trudo v. LeFevre, 504 N.Y.S.2d 68 (A.D. Dept. 1986).
Testing procedure must be introduced on form. Sanchez v. Hoke, 498 N.Y.S.2d 535 and 498 N.Y.S.2d 191 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1986).
Officer's testimony that test was used was insufficient. Lopez v. Kramer, 499 N.y.S. 183 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1986).
Translator for Spanish-speaking inmate does not have to be an employee. Valles v. Smith, 498 N.Y.S.2d 623 (A.D. 4 Dept. 1986).
U.S. Supreme Court rules administrative record need not contain reasons for denying witnesses to inmates. Ponte v. Real, U.S., 105 S.Ct. 2192 (1985).
Commission monitor not required to testify. Catapano v. Smith, 495 N.Y.S. 856, (A.D. 4 1985).
Inmate found guilty of making payment for drugs. Bennett v. Fevre, 495 N.Y.S.2d 521 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
Inmate caught with contraband wedged between teeth. People v. Cheeks, 493 N.Y.S.2d 518 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
Inmate given proper notice that rules applied to all state prisons. Davis v. Coughlin, 493 N.Y.S.2d 804 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Prison officials find weapon in inmate's cell. Kotler v. LeFevre, 489 N.Y.S.2d 649 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
False disciplinary tickets made by corrections officer not grounds for section 1983 action. Galimore v. Lane, 635 F.Supp. 1367 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Punishment pursuant to incident report doesn't require due process ordinarily. Greene v. Secretary of Public Safety, 510 A.2d 613 (Md. App. 1986).
Drawing blueprints not grounds to discipline. Dennison v. OSP, 715 P.2d 88 (Or. 1986).
Institutional rules not properly filed with state. People Ex Rel. Roides v. Smith, 501 N.Y.S.2d 805 (Ct. App. 1986). Misconduct and assault charges dismissed because of mental health. Trujillo v. LeFevre, 498 N.Y.S.2d 696 (Clinton Co., 1986).
No denial of due process in failing to preserve urine sample. Hoeppner v. State, 379 N.W.2d 23 (Iowa App. 1985).
Record ordered expunged due to failure to investigate why witnesses refused to testify. Jackson v. LeFevre, 494 N.Y.S.2d 797 (Sup. 1985).
High court of New York rules inmate is entitled to witness, even though he admitted breaking rules. Coleman v. Coombre, 482 N.E.2d 562 (N.Y. 1985).
In assault charge against prisoner, court properly excluded violent reputation of "move team." Com. v. McMurtry, 482 N.E.2d 332 (Mass. App. 1985).
Polygraph results properly considered in finding guilt. Shulze v. Satran, 368 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 1985).
Hearing officials personally liable for violations of due process, resulting in damages and back pay awarded to inmate. Pino v. Dalsheim, 605 F.Supp. 1 305 (S.D. N.Y. 1984).
Inmate's service by mail grounds for dismissal. People v. Green, 489 N.Y.S.2d 129 (A.D. 4 Dept. 1985).
Correctional officers need not be present at hearing when misbehavior reports are specific and are signed. People Ex Rel. Vega v. Smith, 485 N.E.2d 997 (N.Y. 1985).
No justification shown for allowing inmate only five minutes with fellow inmate giving legal assistance. Grandison v. Cuyler, 774 F.2d 598 (3rd Cir. 1985).
71-year-old prisoner beaten by cellmate. State v. Salazar, 707 P.2d 944 (Ariz. 1985).
Inmate properly found guilty of possessing knife. Lehman v. State, 332 S.E.2d 17 (Ga. App. 1985).
Delay in inmate hearing upheld, due to his assaultive behavior. Nelson v. LeFevre, 488 N.Y.S.2d 830 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
The following cases discuss the admissibility of misbehavior reports in finding inmates guilty.
Report, without officer's testimony, insufficient to find guilt. Perez v. Wilmot, 489 N.Y.S.2d 784 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Misbehavior report sufficient to find inmate guilty of attacking guard. Geddes v. Wilmot, 488 N.Y.S.2d 855 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
Unsworn disciplinary report can serve as basis for finding guilt. Burgos v. Coughlin, 488 N.Y.S.2d 847 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
Razor blade found under soap bar. Smith v. Coughlin, 488 N.Y.S.2d 885 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
Inmate claims drug test detected cold medicine, not cocaine. Kelemen on behalf of Littles v. Coughlin, 489 N.Y.S.2d 67 (Orleans Co. 1985).
In absence of emergency situation, prisoner is entitled to a due process hearing prior to disciplinary action being imposed (Disciplinary Segregation). Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173 (1980).
Due process procedural rights must be afforded inmate prior to severe punishment; inmate's mail from attorney can be opened by officials in presence of inmate. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974).
Prison official's refusal to view video of events violated inmate's rights. Massop v. LeFevre, 487 N.Y.S.2d 925 (Clinton Co., 1985).
Opposite conclusions reached in misconduct violations and APA. Kirkeby v. Department of Corrections, 366 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. App. 1985).
Hearing expunged for being held too late. People Ex. Rel. DeFulmer v. Scully, 487 N.Y.S.2d 401 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Prisoner properly placed in "deadlock" to prevent escape. Bumgarner v. Bloodworth, 768 F.2d 297 (8th Cir. 1985).
It was prejudicial error to admit inmate's past disciplinary record in his assault against guards. Lataille v. Ponte, 754 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1985).
Prisoner's witnesses must be called regardless of whether they swear to his innocence in disciplinary matter. Cripen v. Coughlin, 486 N.Y.S.2d 443 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Inmates are members of the public which requires compliance with administrative procedures act. Martin v. Dept. of Corrections, 364 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. App. 1985).
Refusal to submit to urine sample grounds for discipline. Karaminites v. Reid, 485 N.Y.S.2d 799 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Delayed hearing for sale of heroin leads to annulment. Lozada v. Scully, 485 N.Y.S.2d 571 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Guard's limited knowledge on drug disqualifies him as witness. Wightman v. Super. Mass. Corr. Inst., 475 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. App. 1985).
Officials discovered prisoner's method of buying drugs from the outside. Fediuk v. Coughlin, 484 N.Y.S.2d 221 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1984).
Failure to identify names and sources amounts to hearsay. Van Grimmett v. Warden, Marquette Prison, 355 N.W.2d 637 (Mich. App. 1984).
Hearing officer should have interviewed correction officer instead of relying on misbehavior report. Santana v. Coughlin, 481 N.Y.S.2d 732 (Dutchess Co. 1984).
Summary statement insufficient evidence in inmate discipline. Kelly v. State, 455 So.2d 1018 (Ala. App. 1984).
Although prison officials erred by not telling inmate about confidential information used against him, the error was harmless. Boyd v. Coughlin, 481 N.Y.S.2d 769 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1984).
Hearing officer need not personally meet with informant. In Re Jackson, 206 Cal.Rptr. 55 (App. 1984).
Informant reliable to testify that inmate manipulated guard into storeroom to assault him. Naylor v. Ore. State Penitentiary, 685 P.2d 484 (Ore. App. 1984).
Discipline notice following riot was properly stated. Townes v. Hewitt, 478 A.2d 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Court erred in enjoining prison officials from initiating disciplinary proceedings against inmate for giving sexual poem to counselor. Gomes v. Fair, 738 F.2d 517 (1st Cir. 1984).
Inmate not guilty of disobedience since he did not understand English order. Santana-Betancourt v. OSP, 685 P.2d 479 (Or. App. 1984).
Inmate's record expunged due to improper denial of his attendance at hearing. O'Brien v. Benderson, 476 N.Y.S.2d 697 (App. 1984).
Disciplinary report denied inmate due process. Spooner v. State, 451 So.2d 429 (Ala. App. 1984).
Inmate not attending disciplinary hearing cannot challenge findings. Morrison v. Coughlin, 475 N.Y.S.2d 642 (App. 1984).
Official involved in incident should not have sat on inmate's disciplinary board. Vick v. State, 448 So.2d 474 (Ala. App. 1984).
Informant's statements properly used in disciplinary hearing; delay in hearing justified. Wolfe v. Carlson, 583 F.Supp. 977 (S.D. N.Y. 1984).
Inmate improperly found guilty of possession of marijuana. Matter of Reismiller, 678 P.2d 323 (Wash. 1984).
Refusing inmate's attendance at hearing was a violation and record must be expunged. Burnell v. Smith, 471 N.Y.S.2d 493 (Sup. 1984).
Inmates have no right to circulate petitions, but they must be warned that doing so will result in punishment. Adams v. Gunnell, 729 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1984).
Prison disciplinary findings do not have collateral estoppel or res judicata effect on state's criminal prosecution. State v. Alvey, 678 P.2d 5 (Hawaii 1984).
Disciplinary proceedings against inmate expunged since he was not given written notice of charges in language he could understand. Reyes v. Henderson, 469 N.Y.S.2d 520 (Super. 1983).
Inmate's claim that he was discriminated against because he was homosexual not supported by the evidence. Howard v. Cherish, 575 F.Supp. 34, (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
Guard must be ordered to testify as witness for inmate regardless if he is off duty on the day of the hearing. Ex Parte Bland, 441 So.2d 122 (Ala. 1983).
No violation regarding bedding, soap supplies, and mail restrictions to inmate in isolation. Daigre v. Maggio, 719 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1983).
New hearing ordered since hearing officer failed to properly consider inmate's defense that he stabbed another inmate in selfdefense. Cook v. Coughlin, 469 N.Y.S.2d 2024 (App. 1983).
Inmate's due process rights violated by prison officials failure to record all witnesses' testimony in disciplinary hearing. Burke v. Coughlin, 469 N.Y.S.2d 240 (App. 1983).
Inmate has no right to confidential informant's report which lead to his being disciplined. Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1983).
Disciplinary decision may have been improper. Armstead v. State of La. Dept. of Corr., 714 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1983).
Inmate was properly disciplined for falsely accusing guard of committing homosexual acts. Hadden v. Howard, 713 F.2d 1003 (3rd Cir. 1983).
Prison regulation allowing witnesses to refuse to testify held invalid. Dalton v. Hutto, 713 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1983).
State statute allowing "bread and water" as discipline held invalid. Jenkins v. Werger, 564 F.Supp. 806 (D. Wyo. 1983).
Inmate's discipline and intrastate transfer was proper. Lewis v. Faulkner, 559 F.Supp. 1316 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
Inmate discipline for written complaint wrongfully accusing guard of homosexual acts was proper. Hadden v. Howard, 713 F.2d 1003 (3rd Cir. 1983).
Use of informant's statement at disciplinary hearing requires proof of reliability. Shumwy v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 657 P.2d 686 (Ore. 1983).
Prisoner caught possessing escape equipment. Cepulonis v. Commissioner of Correction, 445 N.E.2d 178 (Mass. App. 1983).
Inmate awarded $1.00 for being improperly disciplined. Wolfel v. Bates, 707 F.2d 932 (6th Cir. 1983).
Inmate discipline based on "vague" prison regulations improper. Clark v. Maine Dept. of Corrs., 463 A.2d 762 (Me. 1983).
Discipline improper for inmate religious ceremony in recreation yard. Bowe v. Smith, 465 N.Y.S.2d 391 (App. 1983).
Disciplinary process invalid. Credibility of "confidential witness" was not established. Casper v. Marquette Prison Warden, 337 N.W.2d 56 (Mich. App. 1983).
Sheriff liable for not providing written notice to inmate on disciplinary charges. Martin v. Foti, 561 F.Supp. 252 (E.D. la. 1983).
Numerous allegations regarding disciplinary process were denied. Jensen v. Satran, 332 N.W.2d 222 (N.D. 1983). Prison regulation prohibiting inmate from calling witnesses who do not want to appear at hearing is invalid. Dalton v. Hutto, 713 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1983).
Inmate's due process rights are not violated when he is refused access to "confidential" report during disciplinary hearing. Dawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1983).
Disciplinary process was improper in general; nominal damages and attorney fees awarded. Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir. 1983).
Washington Supreme Court strikes down state provisions requiring all inmates who enter courtroom to wear leg restraints, and restricting inmate's access to counsel in courtroom. State of Washington v. Hartzog, 635 P.2d 694 (Wash. 1982).
New York inmate's punishment for throwing handkerchief to visitor upheld except for restriction of future visitation rights. Regan v. Coughlin, 448 N.Y.S.2d 258 (App. 1982).
Disciplinary hearing violated Spanish inmate's due process rights where inmate was not provided with accurate translation and not informed of right to call witnesses. Santana v. Coughlin, 457 N.Y.S.2d 944 (App. 1982).
Ninth Circuit rules that Oregon procedures which prohibit inmates from calling other inmates as witnesses violates due process. Bartholomew v. Watson, 665 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1982).
Federal appeals court orders trial in prisoner's suit for wrongful confinement to a special housing unit. Bradley v. Coughlin, 671 F.2d 686 (2nd Cir. 1982).
Prison superintendent modifies rule allowing use of towel while showering; New York court upholds disciplinary punishment for violation of rule before modification, but expunges records of three inmates not afforded hearing within seven days as required. Shahid v. Coughlin, 444 N.Y.S.2d 264 (App. 1981).
Texas court rules that prisoner who left vicinity of community program without authority and was afforded due process rights was not entitled to expungement of disciplinary incident report. Breedlove v. Cripe, 511 F.Supp. 467 (N.D. Texas 1981).
Prisoner transferred from preferred housing for disciplinary reasons not entitled to full due process hearing. O'Callaghan v. Anderson, 514 F.Supp. 765 (M.D. Pa. 1981).
Federal court upholds that prison officials have wide discretion in conducting prison disciplinary hearings; prison officials found not guilty of abuse of discretion in disciplinary hearing by limiting convicting testimony even if that testimony might have allowed inmate to prepare his alibi and defense. Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1981).
New York court holds that keeplocking an inmate for seven days is not sufficiently punitive to warrant due process protections. Boyd v. Coughlin, 442 N.Y.S.2d 824 (App. Div. 1981).
Appeals court rules that disciplinary review board's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to accused inmate violated his right to due process; allows inmate to sue for civil rights violation. Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281 (7th Cir. 1981).
Oklahoma Supreme Court orders trial court to examine prisoner's allegations of deprivation of due process in disciplinary procedures. Prock v. District Court of Pittsburgh Co., 630 P.2d 772 (Okla. 1981).
Federal court rules that inadequate notice of hearing voids prison's disciplinary procedure; inmate's goodtime restored. United States ex rel. Speller v. Lane, 509 F.Supp. 796 (S.D. Ill. 1981).
District court upholds "across-the-board" no witness policy at disciplinary hearings; denial of counsel or substitute permitted in qualified situations. Devaney v. Hall, 509 F.Supp. 497 (D. Mass. 1981).
Third Circuit finds that prisoner was adequately accorded due process rights prior to loss of goodtime credits and reassignment of security classification. People Ex Rel Stringer v. Rowe, 414 N.E.2d 466 (3d Cir. 1980).
Permanent injunction issued against correctional facility for failure to provide inmates with due process protection in disciplinary proceedings. Powell v. Ward, 487 F.Supp. 917 (D.C. N.Y. 1980).
California Appeals Court upholds order precluding contact visitation for prisoners found in possession of contraband. In re Bell, 168 Cal.Rptr. 100 (App. 1980).
Federal court denies relief to state prisoner who was locked up in the "hole" for throwing hot coffee on another inmate. Maxton v. Johnson, 488 F.Supp. 1030 (D.S.C. 1980).
Three days solitary confinement for failure to stop playing cards held not a denial of constitutional rights; dismissal of civil rights claim affirmed. Jordan v. Jones, 625 F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1980).
Appellate court rules that a test to determine whether liquid seized from a cell is an intoxicant is not necessary; hearing officer's observations are held sufficient. Olds v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 617 P.2d 644 (Ore. App. 1980). Failure to call witnesses or conduct investigation on inmate's behalf voids disciplinary hearing. Cruz v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 617 P.2d 644 (Ore. App. 1980).
Disciplinary board fails to conduct investigation into the identity of alleged informant; appeals court voids the disciplinary proceeding on the incident. Benkins v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 617 P.2d 653 (Ore. App. 1980).
Court admits after-the-fact letter to show lack of inmate's credibility and the frivolous nature of his claim. Carter v. Hewitt, 617 F.2d 96 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Inmate who alleged errors in disciplinary proceedings allowed to bring action under Section 1983; good faith defense on motion. Smith v. Robinson, 495 F.Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
Federal court allows inmate to proceed with civil rights suit growing out of disciplinary proceedings. Stringer v. Rowe, 616 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1980).
Colorado Court rules that inmate must be allowed opportunity to confront complaining guard at adjustment hearing where feasible. Adargo v. Barr, 482 F.Supp. 283 (D. Colo. 1980).
Nonviolent inmate work stoppage is not emergency justifying suspension of procedural rights. Marioneaux v. Colorado State Penitentiary, 465 F.Supp. 1245 (D. Colo. 1979).
Court holds malicious prosecution of disciplinary offense against inmate does not state claim against prison guard; no need to allow witnesses at hearing for accused inmate. Pollard v. Baskerville, 481 F.Supp. 1157 (E.D. Va. 1979).
No abridgement of constitutional rights in disciplining of prisoner for circulating petition. Williams v. Stacy, 468 F.Supp. 1206 (E.D. Va. 1979).
Court reverses disciplinary ruling where inmate was not provided with certified transcript of proceedings. Crudo v. Fogg, 415 N.Y.S.2d 897 (App. 1979).
District court holds that punishing an inmate for keeping stick in his cell is not arbitrary because others may not be punished for the same or worse behavior. Phillips v. Gaithright et al, 468 F.Supp. 1211 (W.D. Va. 1979).
Fourth Circuit recognizes right of inmate to inspect file where he alleges false information is in it. Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197 (4th Cir. 1979).
» For earlier case discussions see: Ware v. Heyne, 575 F.2d 593 (7th Cir. 1978); Mack v. Johnson, 420 F.Supp. 1139 (E.D. Pa. 1977); Hayes v. Walker, 555 F. 2d 625 (7th Cir. 1977); King v. Higgens, 370 F.Supp. 1023 (D. Mass. 1974); United States ex rel Miller v. Towmey, 479 F.2d 701 (7th Cir. 1973); Inmate 24394 v. Schoen, 363 F.Supp. 683 (D. Minn. 1973); Landman v. Royster, 354 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D. Va. 1973); Lathrop v. Brewer, 340 F.Supp. 873 (S.D. Iowa 1972); Drake v. Airhart, 245 S.E.2d 853 (W. Va. 1978); Moss v. Ward, 450 F.Supp. 591 (W.D. N.Y. 1978); Berch v. Stahl, 373 F.Supp. 412 (W.D. N.C. 1974).