The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 98-3681SI

____________

Danny Bridgeman, *

*

Appellant, * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court for

v. * for the Southern District

* of Iowa.

John Ault; Attorney General of State of *

Iowa, * [Not To Be Published]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 27, 1999

 Filed: June 14, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Danny Bridgeman, an Iowa inmate, appeals from the District Court’s denial of 1

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, alleging prison officials denied his constitutional right

to present a defense during a disciplinary action. We affirm.
-2-

After a prison officer searched a room shared by Bridgeman and other inmates,

the officer found a balloon filled with marijuana. The balloon was located inside a

coffee cup on top of a locker, which was accessible to all of the inmates. When none

of the inmates indicated who owned the marijuana, they all were charged with

disciplinary violations in connection with the drugs. In preparation of his defense,

Bridgeman offered to submit to a urine test or to pay for and submit a polygraph, but

his requests were denied. He also asked that the container of marijuana be tested for

fingerprints, but this also was not done.

Following a hearing, Bridgeman was found guilty of drug possession, and was

sentenced to disciplinary detention and administrative segregation; he also lost sixteen

days of good-time credits. The decision was affirmed on administrative appeal. In

response to a “supplemental appeal,” a prison memorandum to Bridgeman indicated

that he was “not entitled” to a urinalysis, blood, polygraph, or fingerprint test, noting

that he had been “cited for possession which is not meant to be for the usage.” After

exhausting state remedies, he filed this habeas action claiming he was denied the right

to present a defense because prison officials had refused to perform a urine, polygraph,

or fingerprint test. The District Court denied Bridgeman’s petition, concluding his due

process rights had not been violated.

An inmate must be afforded procedural protections before being deprived of a

protected liberty interest in good-time credits. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

563-66 (1974). Specifically, in prison disciplinary proceedings, an inmate is entitled

to (1) advance written notice of charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and

present documentary evidence when doing so “will not be unduly hazardous to

institutional safety or correctional goals”; and (3) a written statement of the reasons for

any disciplinary action taken. See id. at 563, 566. While an inmate may call witnesses

and present documentary evidence, prison officials have the discretion “to keep the

hearing within reasonable limits” and to limit access “to compile . . . documentary

evidence.” See id. at 566. We conclude that Bridgeman was not constitutionally
-3-

entitled to administration of a drug or polygraph test, or to the performance of a

fingerprint analysis. See Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988)

(rejecting inmate’s argument that he should have been allowed to take polygraph

examination addressing whether he participated in planning or furthering escape); cf.

Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1152-53 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (due process does

not require prison officials to provide second urinalysis by impartial laboratory), cert.

denied, 513 U.S. 829 (1994).

Bridgeman argues that he was never given a reason for the institution’s refusal

to perform the tests, and that prison officials were required to explain the refusal.

While prison officials must explain their refusal to allow an inmate to present evidence,

see Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495-97 (1985), their refusal to create evidence by

performing the tests Bridgeman requested is different from merely refusing to permit

the use of such evidence at the hearing. As due process did not require prison officials

to perform the tests, we conclude he was not entitled to a reason for the prison’s refusal

to perform them. We also note that the prison memorandum to Bridgeman seemed to

indicate his requests were denied because prison officials did not believe the tests were

relevant to the charges.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.