2015 UT App 87

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

SHAYNE TODD,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

DENNIS SORENSEN,

Respondent and Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140593-CA

Filed April 9, 2015

Sixth District Court, Manti Department

The Honorable Wallace A. Lee

No. 130600055

Shayne Todd, Appellant Pro Se

Sean D. Reyes and Amanda N. Montague, Attorneys

for Appellee

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE, and 

KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Shayne Todd appeals the district court’s order granting 

Dennis Sorensen’s motion for summary judgment and 

dismissing Todd’s petition for extraordinary relief. When 

reviewing an appeal from a dismissal of a petition for 

extraordinary relief, “we accord no deference to the conclusions 

of law that underlie the dismissal. They are reviewed for 

correctness.” Neel v. Holden, 886 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Utah 1994).

¶2 Todd, an inmate at the Central Utah Correctional Facility, 

argues that he was denied due process at a disciplinary hearing 

after he was charged with violating prison rules. Due process 

requires that a prisoner receive: “(1) advance written notice of 

the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent 
Todd v. Sorensen

with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses 

and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a 

written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and 

the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Superintendent, Mass. 

Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). Additionally, 

“the minimum requirements of procedural due process” 

demand that “the findings of the prison disciplinary board are 

supported by some evidence in the record.” Id.

¶3 Todd did not dispute in the district court that he received 

written notice of the disciplinary charges. Accordingly, to the 

extent Todd raises such an issue on appeal, we do not address it. 

See State v. Diaz-Arevalo, 2008 UT App 219, ¶ 10, 189 P.3d 85 

(stating that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must 

originally be raised in the district court in such a manner that 

allows the district court an opportunity to avoid or correct the 

alleged error). Todd does, however, argue that he was not 

allowed to call witnesses at the hearing. Specifically, he asserts 

that the prison guard and the nurse, who alleged that he 

intentionally dropped one of his medications in order to save it 

for later use were not at the hearing. Instead, their versions of 

the facts were submitted in written statements. Accordingly, he 

argues that he was denied due process because he was unable to 

cross-examine the witnesses. However, “[p]rison disciplinary 

proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 

panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not 

apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In this vein,

courts have concluded that the due process requirement that 

prisoners be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary 

evidence “does not require the confrontation and crossexamination of witnesses in prison disciplinary proceedings.”

Taylor v. Wallace, 931 F.2d 698, 701 (10th Cir. 1991). Based on the 

facts of this case, Todd cannot demonstrate that he was denied 

due process based on the prison guard’s and the nurse’s absence

at the disciplinary hearing.

20140593-CA 2 2015 UT App 87
Todd v. Sorensen

¶4 Todd next asserts that he did not receive a written 

statement by the hearing officer of the evidence the hearing 

officer relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. This 

is not the case. Todd was provided a written statement 

indicating that the finding of guilt was based on the reports of 

the eyewitnesses. Thus, Todd was apprised of the reasons for the 

hearing officer’s decision.

¶5 Finally, Todd argues that the findings of the hearing 

officer are not supported by “some evidence.” See Walpole, 472 

U.S. at 454. Because the hearing officer properly admitted the 

statements of the prison guard and the nurse which detailed the 

conduct that led to the disciplinary charge, there was some 

evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision.

¶6 Affirmed.

20140593-CA 3 2015 UT App 87