Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00413/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

RICHARD ALAN DAVIS *

ADC #089568, *

*

Plaintiff *

*

v. * Case No. 5:04CV00413 JFF

*

PHILIP BAUGHMAN, et al., *

*

Defendants *

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (docket entry #18) to which

Plaintiff has responded (docket entry #25-27). In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants first

contend that Plaintiff has failed to provide proof of exhaustion on his retaliation claims. 

Defendants argue that while Plaintiff provided proof that he exhausted a grievance in which he

alleged that he was being retaliated against by Officer Taylor, he failed to submit grievance

documentation showing that he exhausted the allegations of retaliation against Defendant

Baughman. Defendants do not reference or mention MX04-1127 that is attached to the

Complaint in which Plaintiff contends that the disciplinary issued by Baughman was false. 

Plaintiff provided the Court the Deputy Director’s decision on the grievance. Contrary to

Defendants’ assertion, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies

on his retaliation claim against Defendant Baughman. Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th

Cir. 2005) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense that defendants must plead and prove).

Defendants next contend that Plaintiff’s claim against Hearing Officer Minor is premised

Case 5:04-cv-00413-BD Document 36 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 3
2

upon the fact that she used “F-1 Statement” as a “short-hand phrase” on the Disciplinary Hearing

Action to reference the Officer’s Statements that she relied upon to find Plaintiff guilty of the

infraction. Minor contends that use of this reference cannot support a constitutional claim for

violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights at the disciplinary hearing. The Court explained the

basis for allowing this claim to proceed in the initial Recommended Disposition that issued

before the parties consented to appear before the undersigned. The problem here is that the

Court does not have any admissible evidence in the record that defines an “F-1 Statement,” nor

does it have the “F-1 Statement” as a part of the record. The Court merely has an explanation

from defense counsel. 

Plaintiff contends that the written statement by fact finder Minor did not satisfy due

process requirements. As stated by the Eighth Circuit, 

The Wolff written statement requirement obviously precludes a prison disciplinary board

from choosing ‘either approach’ when it comes to explaining the evidence relied on and

the reasons for the disciplinary action; there must be a written statement drafted

contemporaneously with the disciplinary action. Still, the balance between the

penological interest in avoiding excessive administrative burdens in order to use

disciplinary proceedings to assure institutional safety and promote rehabilitation, on the

one hand, and the interests of the individual inmate, on the other, is such that the due

process clause does not require ‘technical and detailed disciplinary reports.’ The

requirement is satisfied if the written statement, even though ‘sparse in content,’ is

‘sufficient to inform [the inmate] of the evidence relied upon by the factfinders in

reaching their decision to take disciplinary action.’ This ensures that disciplinary boards

will not act arbitrarily, and it forces a disciplinary board to commit itself,

contemporaneously with its decision, to certain evidence, thus allowing a reviewing body

to fairly and accurately review the incident that led to the proceeding or the proceeding

itself. After this, due process requires no more, and it certainly does not dictate that we

expose a disciplinary board's written statement to such extensive scrutiny that we fail to

adequately respect ‘the legitimate institutional needs of assuring the safety of inmates and

prisoners, avoiding burdensome administrative requirements that might be susceptible to

manipulation, and preserving the disciplinary process as a means of rehabilitation.’ 

Brown v. Frey, 807 F.2d 1407, 1411-12 (8th Cir.1986) (internal citations omitted). The Due

Case 5:04-cv-00413-BD Document 36 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Process requirement for the fact finder’s written statement in the prison disciplinary setting is

indeed minimal. However, the Court simply does not have the evidence that it needs to resolve

the legal issue at the Motion to Dismiss stage.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED (docket

entry #18).

DATED this 9th day of January, 2006. 

 

 

 

 __________________________________ 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 5:04-cv-00413-BD Document 36 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 3