AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prisoner Discipline
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.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Procedural Due Process In Prisoner Discipline Cases – Part 1, 2019 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
An Illinois inmate claimed that three corrections officers failed to follow mandatory legal procedures before imposing discipline upon him for violating prison rules relating to “unauthorized organizational activity” by “intimidation or threats” on behalf of the Latin Kings gang. He asserted that the process violated Illinois Administrative Code provisions relating to the appointment of hearing investigators to review all major disciplinary reports, service of the report no more than eight days after the commission of an offense or its discovery, provision of a written reason for the denial of his request for in-person testimony at his hearing, not placing him under investigation, failing to independently review notes, telephone logs, and recordings, denial of his requests to see the notes he had allegedly written, and lack of impartiality and improper refusal to recuse. He asserted that he had made a timely objection to the committee members’ lack of impartiality, but the committee failed to document that objection. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that the inmate failed to state a claim for mandamus or common-law writ of certiorari for alleged violations of department regulations. Department regulations, the court stated, create no more rights for inmates than those that are constitutionally required. The prison officials did not, however, give reasons for denying the inmate’s witnesses and evidence during the disciplinary proceedings, nor did they explain that decision later; The court reversed with regard to the prisoner’s claim that the defendants violated his right to due process in revoking his good conduct credits. Fillmore v. Taylor, 2019 IL 122626, 2019 Ill. Lexis 451.
A disciplinary report was issued charging an Illinois prisoner with offenses stemming from a violent assault on fellow prisoners. He disputed the charges and asked to call a witness to testify at his Adjustment Committee hearing. The committee never called his witness. He was found guilty, and a punishment of one year of segregation, status and access restrictions, and revocation of three months of good-time credits was imposed. He filed a grievance and appealed its subsequent denial to an Administrative Review Board, which adjusted the revocation of good-time credits but rejected a due-process claim, concluding that his witness request did not comply with prison rules. Morgan sued three officers for damages. The officers cited the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under that rule, when a prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the trial court must consider whether a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. “Where a favorable judgment would have that effect, no §1983 claim has accrued and the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” A federal appeals court affirmed that the due-process claim was not viable under section 1983. Prisoners cannot make an “end run” around Heck by filing an affidavit waiving challenges to the portion of their punishment that revokes good-time credits. Judgment in the plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prison discipline. The suit was premature, therefore, as his guilt of the offenses had not been overturned. Morgan v. Schott, #16-2384, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3559 (7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court affirmed the denial of three petitions for habeas relief arising from disciplinary proceedings in which he was sanctioned for sending threatening letters from prison. The court ruled that the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prohibited Acts Code 203, which prohibits inmates from threatening another person with bodily harm or any other offense, addressed legitimate penological concerns in a manner that was sufficiently narrow to satisfy any constitutional concerns. The court also held that the BOP's disciplinary actions were supported by sufficient evidence. Lane v. Salazar, #17-35868, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35861 (9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld the denial of three petitions for habeas relief challenging the revocation of good time credits. The prisoner was disciplined under the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prohibited Acts Code 203, which prohibits threatening another person with bodily harm or any other offense. The court held that when read reasonably in the context of the prison setting, and limiting the phrase “any other offense” to criminal offenses or violations of BOP rules, Code 203 is sufficiently narrow and clear to protect inmates’ First Amendment rights. Lane v. Swain, #17-55578, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35855 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner challenged a trial court’s dismissal of his lawsuit arising out of the incident that led to his disciplinary hearing as barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), which as extended by Edwards v. Balisok, #95-1352, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) strips a district court of jurisdiction in a § 1983 suit brought by an imprisoned plaintiff “if ‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity’” of a punishment that “deprive[d] him of good-time credits,” also referred to as gain time. A federal appeals court vacated the judgment, ruling that the lawsuit was not barred by Heck. In this case, the plaintiff was punished and lost good time, but his 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, if successful, would not necessarily imply that his punishment was invalid. The court explained that, because success in this section 1983 suit would not necessarily be “logically contradictory” with the underlying punishment, the suit was not barred by Heck. The essence of the prisoner’s claim was that an officer used excessive force against him, and that could be true even if the prisoner did lunge at the officer, which was the basis of his punishment, Dixon v. Pollock, #16-15040, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 10215 (11th Cir.).
A federal appeals court rejected claims of denial of a prisoner’s First Amendment right of access to the courts and Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims related to prison disciplinary proceedings asserted under the implied cause of action theory adopted by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, #301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The appeals court noted that neither the U.S. Supreme Court or it had ever expanded Bivens to such claims. Further, the circumstances of the plaintiff's case against private employees at the residential reentry facility plainly presented a "new context" under Ziglar v. Abbasi, #15-1358, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (declining to apply Bivens to claims by alien detainees confined after 9-11 concerning their conditions of confinement), weighing against any such extension of Bivens. The court also stated that the plaintiff had alternative means for relief against the alleged violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights by the private defendants. Vega v. United States, #13-35311, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 2980 (9th Cir.).
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).