Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02729/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02729-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

*

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2729

___________

John Warda, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Marty C. Anderson, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 29, 2005

Filed: August 8, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate John Warda challenges the district court’s*

 dismissal of Warda's

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the loss of good-time credits and

other sanctions following a disciplinary determination he had possessed contraband.

We affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-2729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937256
-2-

Contrary to Warda’s argument, due process requires only the existence of

“some evidence” to support the revocation of good-time credits. See Superintendent

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (due process requirements satisfied if “some

evidence” supports decision to revoke good-time credits). Having reviewed the

district court's findings for clear error, we conclude the record supports the court’s

determination the disciplinary decision was based on some evidence. See Hayes v.

Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995). Among other things, the hearing officer

considered an incident report describing how a cooler with Warda’s name on it and

containing contraband was found under his bed during a search of his cubicle. The

officer also considered a memorandum which stated an FBI special agent had

interviewed Warda and Warda’s cubicle-mate, and had determined the items belonged

to Warda. 

Warda also argues the district court should have independently evaluated the

credibility of the confidential informant (CI ) whose information was considered by

the hearing officer, but this argument fails because “some evidence” other than the

CI information supports the disciplinary decision. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-57;

Espinoza v. Peterson, 283 F.3d 949, 952 (8th Cir.) (reviewing court must examine

reason for non-disclosure and reliability of CI only in cases where CI information is

needed to satisfy “some evidence” standard), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 870 (2002). 

Given the existence of some evidence to support the disciplinary determination,

Warda’s remaining arguments about application of the constructive-possession rule

and certain allegedly erroneous factual determinations are meritless. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937256