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 John Ault; Attorney General of State o f * Iowa, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 27, 1999 Filed: June 14, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and BEAM, Circui t 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 off icer 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 wit h disciplina ry 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 r equests were denied. He also asked that the container of marijuana be tested for fingerprints, but this also was not done.
F o llowing a hearing, Bridgeman was found guilty of drug possession, and was sentenced to disciplinary detentio n and administrative segregation; he also lost sixteen days of good-time credits. The decision was affirmed on administrative appeal. I n res ponse to a “supplemental appeal,” a prison memorandum to Bridgeman indicate d 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 refu sed to perform a urine, polygraph, or fingerprint test. The District Court deni ed 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 W olff 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 an d pr esent documentary evidence when doing so “will not be unduly hazardous t o institutional safety or correctional goals”; and (3) a written statement of the reasons for any disciplinary action taken. See id. at 563, 566. Whi le an inmate may call witnesses and present documentary evidence, prison officials have the discretion “to keep th e hearing w ithin reasonable limits” and to limit access “to compile . . . documentar y ev idence.” See id. at 566. We conclude that Bridgeman was not constitutionall y-3-

entitle d to administration of a drug or polygraph test, or to the performance of a fingerpr int

analysis. See Freitas v. Auger , 837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988 ) (re jecting inmate’s argument that he should have been allowed to take polygrap h examination addressing whether he participated in planning or furthering escape); cf. Allen v. Purkett , 5 F.3d 1151, 115 2-53 (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). Bridg eman argues that he was never given a reason for the institution’s refusal to perf orm 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 b y 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.