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.
Prison reform - Wikipedia
Moeroyk, No. 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. An inmate's action of kissing a nurse on the cheek was insufficient to support disciplinary charges against him for "soliciting a sexual act.
The court ordered expunging from the prisoner's record of all references to the charge of "soliciting a sexual act. 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.
More than 2,500 prison staff disciplined in five years, MoJ figures show
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. 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.
- Cancers of the Mouth and Throat: A Patients Guide to Treatment.
- Humidification in the Intensive Care Unit: The Essentials.
- Bill Rodgerss Marathon Guide.
Raemisch, No. 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. Lexis E. Imposing sanctions on a prisoner, including the loss of 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. D, Cal. Lexis 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. 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. Lexis 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.
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.
Uchtman, No. 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. 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. C, U. 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. 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.
Government presents vision for imprisonment: ‘Setting prisoners to work’
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. 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. 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. 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.
- Prison officer sacked and jailed for having sex with inmate in cell!
- No Easy Choices.
- TOADSTOOL! An Introduction to Edible Wild Mushrooms of New England!
- Forex Trading - A Beginners Guide: An Illustrated Introduction To Currency Trading.
- Discipline ‹ PLSMA.
- Star Wars Clone Wars Jedi in Training (DK Readers Level 2)!
- More than 2, prison staff disciplined in five years, MoJ figures show | Society | The Guardian.