Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10701/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10701-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellant
Roy Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10701

Summary Calendar

 

ROY PERRY,

Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:00-CV-274

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The respondent appeals the district court’s grant of Roy

Perry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his prison

disciplinary proceeding. The district court found that there was

insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt with respect to

the disciplinary charges that Perry participated in a riot and that

he damaged prison property during the riot. Perry lost good

conduct time in connection with his disciplinary case, and he is

eligible for mandatory release. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d

 Case: 03-10701 Document: 0051550362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2004
2

953, 956 (5th Cir. 2000).

“[F]ederal courts cannot retry every prison disciplinary

dispute; rather the court may act only where arbitrary or

capricious action is shown.” Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062

(5th Cir. 1994). Consequently, due process requires only that

there be “some evidence” in the record to support a prison

disciplinary decision, and prison disciplinary decisions are

overturned only where no evidence in the record supports the

decision. Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874, 876-77 (5th Cir.

2001); see also Superintendent, Massachusetts Corr. Inst., Walpole

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Neither the Supreme Court nor

this court has stated that eyewitness testimony is required to

satisfy due process concerns in the context of a disciplinary

charge. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455; Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534,

536-37 (5th Cir. 2001).

The record does not clearly identify the source of the

charging officer’s statement or Sergeant Sargent’s statement that

Perry was a participant in the riot. It is possible, as the

district court concluded, that the sole source for the charges

against Perry was medical personnel’s identification of Perry as an

inmate who received treatment for injuries suffered during the

riot. The specificity of the charging officer’s charge, noting

that Perry and two other named inmates were aggressors in the riot

and that Perry damaged property during the riot, makes this

scenario questionable, however. The record also does not indicate

 Case: 03-10701 Document: 0051550362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2004
3

that the charging officer actually witnessed the alleged incidents.

Still, it is only supposition that this information was based upon

information from someone else, and there is no indication that the

information was obtained from a confidential informant, which was

the basis of information for the disciplinary charge in Broussard.

Thus, although it is unclear whether the record contains

direct evidence identifying Perry as a riot participant, “the

record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the

disciplinary board were without support or otherwise arbitrary.”

See Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. As there was “some evidence” in the

record that could support the disciplinary hearing officer’s

findings, the district court’s judgment is REVERSED and this case

is REMANDED for entry of judgment in favor of the respondent.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF

RESPONDENT.

 Case: 03-10701 Document: 0051550362 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2004