Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00002/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00002-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gregory Allen Stanhope,

Petitioner,

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondent, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-02 TUC DCB

O R D E R

On April 29, 2008, this Court ordered the Respondent to provide, in camera, the reasons

it refused to call the witnesses requested by the Petitioner at his disciplinary hearings and why

he was not allowed to see notes that were used against him.

On June 5, 2008, the Respondent made its in camera disclosure. The Court incorporates,

here, the Magistrate Judge’s findings of law and fact set out in the Report and Recommendation

and this Court’s Order issued on April 29, 2008.

After an in camera review of Respondents reasons for disallowing certain witnesses and

for not allowing the Petitioner to see the notes, the Court finds as follows:

1. Ground One - Disciplinary Report No. 03-C25-0052. 

Sgt. Barry explained the context of his responses to the Petitioner’s questions. In

response to questions concerning the victim’s condition after the incident, Sgt. Barry meant he

had not personally seen the victim when he said, “I don’t know, I’m not a doctor.” In response

to questions concerning information Sgt. Barry received from witnesses, specifically other

inmates, Sgt. Barry meant that he would not divulge information that might allow the

Respondent to identify such witnesses and retaliate against them, when he said, “none of your

business.”

Case 4:07-cv-00002-DCB Document 24 Filed 06/09/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Supplemental filing by Respondent is not responsive in respect to the reason the

hearing officer refused to call Sgt Barry to give live testimony at the disciplinary hearing.

Sgt. Barry was the investigating officer for disciplinary ticket No. 03-C25-0052. He did

not personally observe the inmate victim, but the investigation included reports prepared by

officers in attendance that reflected the victim’s face was swollen and bruised, that he was

unresponsive, and that Tucson Fire Department paramedics determined that the victim should

be transported to UMC’s trauma unit. (Supplement, Ex. A: Barry Affidavit.) 

As the investigating officer, Sgt. Barry had information relevant to the case. Because

there is no penological reason given by the Respondent for not calling this witness, the Court

can only conclude that he should have been called to testify at the disciplinary hearing. 

The due process violation may be corrected by either restoring the 60-days ERCs

forfeited in connection with this proceeding or affording the Petitioner a new hearing.

1. Ground Two - Disciplinary Report Nos. 04-403-745 and 04-403-746.

Petitioner requested witness statements from COII McNatt, COII Staats, and inmates Foy

(the victim), Conway (the assailant), and Hatfield. (R&R at 14-15 (citing Petition at 6)). As

explained in this Court’s April 29, Order, the inmate victims were disallowed for penological

reasons. COII McNatt filed written responses that were detailed and thorough. According to

Petitioner’s administrative appeal, COII McNatt was the investigating officer, the reporting

officer, and also testified at the hearing. (Supplement, Ex. B(2) at 13, 20.)

The Petitioner complains that the hearing officer refused to call COII Staats, especially

because Officer Staats refused to complete written responses. (Supplement, Ex. B: Roerink

Declaration at 5, Ex. B(2): Appeal at 15.) The record is, however, to the contrary. COII Staats

did complete a witness questionnaire, id., Ex. B(2) at 9, which reflects he had no involvement

in the investigation of the incident that was the subject of this disciplinary hearing. Since COII

Staats would not have any relevant evidence to the investigation, Respondent refused to call him

as a witness. 

Review of the administrative record reflects that the Petitioner had several complaints

regarding the handwritten notes that were used as evidence of his involvement in the assault on

Case 4:07-cv-00002-DCB Document 24 Filed 06/09/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

inmate Foy, (Supplement, Ex. B(2) at Issues ## 6, 9, 10-13), but he never complained that he

was denied permission to see the notes. Instead, his complaints reflect he had access to the

notes and read them. (See Appeal to Disciplinary Hearing Officer at Issue 9 (“If you take the

wording of the ‘Note” as true, it in itself does not state that any stamps or money is being

collected from any inmates at all, in fact, it does not state that anything is being collected . . .?”);

Issue 10 (“The note does not state any manner of the collection either, so there is no evidence

or proof to support the allegation that even if it was true – stamps and money were being

collected – that it was thru extortion and intimidation . . .. The note does not state “how” any

such collection was to be . . . so even taken at face value, no proof was exhibited . . .,”); see

also Appeal to Deputy Warden at Issue 12 (“. . . even the Note itself does not state so or imply

that . . .”); Issue 10 (The note – the only piece of evidence at all does not state or imply that

extortion or intimidation was used to collect anything at all, . . ..”)) 

The Court finds that there was no due process violation in respect to these disciplinary

proceedings.

Conclusion.

As the Court noted in its Order, issued April 29, 2008, the burden on the Respondent is

not heavy. A disciplinary proceeding is not the same as a criminal proceeding, and Petitioner’s

right to present evidence is necessarily circumscribed by the penological needs for swift

discipline in individual cases and safety. These limitations are significant, and this Court will

not readily put aside the judgment of prison administrators for they need discretion to keep the

hearing within reasonable time limits and to refuse to call witnesses that create a risk of reprisal

or undermine authority. Consequently , a constitutional challenge to a disciplinary hearing will

rarely, if ever, be successful. (Order, 4/29/08 at 5 (citations omitted.)

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 4:07-cv-00002-DCB Document 24 Filed 06/09/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

The Court finds that Respondent has met its burden in respect to all of Petitioner’s

challenges except for Sgt. Barry. The Respondent fails to offer any explanation at all as to why

it refused to call Sgt. Barry to testify at the disciplinary hearing.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Respondent’s

Supplement in camera brief UNDER SEAL.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2008.

Case 4:07-cv-00002-DCB Document 24 Filed 06/09/08 Page 4 of 4