## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 17 60

__ __ __ __ __ _

Carr ol l J am es Flo wers

, *

*

App el la nt

, *

*

v. *

*

Mar ty C. Ande rs on , W ard en , Uni te d *

St at es Med ic al Cen te r fo r Fed eral *

Pri so ne rs

, *

*

App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s

Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

No. 1 1- 17 64 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

__ __ __ __ __ _

Ch ris to ph er Mi ch ael Dann ar, *

*

App el la nt

, *

*

v. *

*

Mar ty C. Ande rs on , W ard en , Uni te d *

St at es Med ic al Cen te r fo r Fed eral *

Pri so ne rs

, *

*

App el le e. *__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 11

Fil ed : No ve m

be r 16 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Carr o ll Fl owe rs an d Mi ch ael Dan na r, in m at es at th e Uni te d St at es Med ic al

Cen te r fo r Fed eral Pri so ne rs (“ Med ic al Cen te r”) in Sp rin gf ie ld

, Mi ss ou ri, pe ti ti on ed

fo r writ s of ha be as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 41

. The y al le ge d th at th ei r du e

p r o ces s rig ht s were vi ol at ed whe n th e in st it ut io n im po se d di sc ip li ne

, in cl ud in g

rev oc a ti on of go od ti m e cred it s, fo r po ss es si on of a weap on

. The di st ric t co ur t *

di sm is se d t he pe ti ti on s, an d we a ffi rm

.

As of Ju ly 2 00 9, Fl owe rs an d Dan na r were se rv in g fed eral pr is on se nt en ces

at th e Med ic al Cen te r. The y were two of ei gh t in m at es as si gn ed t o R o o m 22 2 in

W ard W 02 (8- 2) of t he faci li ty.

Dur in g a se arch of Ro om 22 2 on Ju ly 30

, 20 09

, a st aff m em be r di sc ov ered two

ho m em ad e, ic e-p ic k type weap on s. Each weap on was m ad e fro m a m et al ro d an d

sh arp e n e d to a po in t. The weap on s were fo un d be twee n an el ect ric al co nd ui t an d

th e wall ab ov e th e en try d oo r to Ro om 22 2 in wha t t h e in st it ut io n’s he ari ng of fic er

de sc rib ed as “ th e co m

m on area of th e ro om .” The reco rd do es no t in cl ud e a di ag ram

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard E. Dor r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn *

Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of th e H o n o r ab le

Ja m es C. Eng la nd

, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of

Mi ss ou ri.

-2

-of Ro om 22 2 or de sc rib e it in an y de ta il

. The in mat e s c h a r a c t e riz e it as “ an ei gh t

m an do rm

roo m .”

The st aff m em

be r rep or te d th at he no ti ced two lo ck ers on on e si de of th e en try

do or to Ro om 22 2. One lo ck er was sh or t, th e ot he r ta ll

. The y were po si ti on ed rig ht

ne xt to each ot he r, an d bo th lo ck er t o p s w ere de nt ed

, “ li ke so m eo ne ha d be en

st an di ng on th em .” The st aff m em be r cl im be d at op th e ta ll er loc ke r, fel t aro un d th e

el ect ric al co nd ui t, “ ag ai ns t th e wall

, jus t be lo w th e cei li ng ,” an d id en ti fie d so m et hi ng

lo os e. He us ed a pe n to pu sh on e of th e weap on s free fro m be twee n th e wall an d th e

co nd ui t. The st aff m em

be r th en us ed a la dd er to se arch th e ot he r si de of th e do or way

,

an d h e lo cat ed a se co nd weap on be twee n t he wall an d t he co nd ui t.

The st aff m em

be r co m pl et ed an in ci de nt rep or t, an d th e m at te r was refe rred to

a Uni t Dis ci pl in e Co m

m it te e. The in ci de nt rep or t sa id th at du rin g a se arch of Ro om

22 2, t he st aff m em

be r di sc ov ered two weap on s “ hi dd en be hi nd el ect ric co nd ui t, i n

t h e c e il in g ab ov e th e en try do or .” The co m m it te e refe rred th e ch arg e to th e

Dis ci pl in ary Heari ng Offi cer fo r fu rth er he ari n g

, w i th a reco m m en da ti on th at th e

ch arg e b e e x p un ge d. The co m m it te e’s vi ew was th at th e weap on s were fo un d in a

co m m on area , a n d t h a t a ll in m at es in an ad jacen t do rm it or y ha d as m uc h acce ss to

th e are a as di d F lo wers an d Dan na r.

The he ari ng of

fic e r c o n v e n e d a he ari ng te n da y s la te r. Fl owe rs an d Dan na r

waiv ed st aff rep r e s e n t a t io n. Bo th in m at es de ni ed an y kn owl ed ge of th e weap on s.

The y de cl in ed to su bm it do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce or to req ue st wit ne ss es

. As far as we

can di sc ern

, n o e v i d en ce was pr es en te d reg ard in g th e pr ox im it y of an ot he r

do rm it or y to Ro om 22 2 or th e acce ss ib il it y o f R o o m 2 22 to in m at es who are no t

as si gn ed to th at roo m

.

-3

-The he ari ng of fic er fo un d th at th e gr eat er weig ht of t he ev id en ce es ta bl is he d

th at bo th in m at es ha d com m it te d th e pr oh ib it ed act of po ss es si on of a weap on

. The

rep or t fo r eac h i nm at e rea so ne d a s fo ll ows :

The two weap on s were fo un d in th e co m m on area of Ro om 22 2, whe re

al l oc cu pa nt s of th e ro om ha d acce ss to th em

. All o c cu pa nt s of th e

r oo m are res po ns ib le fo r al l it em s fo un d in th e co m m on area o f t h e

ro om

. No sp eci al to ol s w e r e r e q u ire d to ret rie ve th e weap on s. The

rep or ti n g s t aff m em

be r di d us e a la dd er to ret rie ve on e of th e

weap on s[ ;] h owe ve r it is be li ev ed th at th e weap on co ul d b e r e c o ve red

wit ho ut th e la dd er.

As s a n c t i o n s

, t he he ari ng of fic er or de red th e lo ss of 41 da y s of go od co nd uc t ti m e,

30 da y s in di sc ip li na ry se gr e g a t i o n

, a n d lo ss of co m m is sa ry an d te le ph on e

pr iv il eg es for 90 da y s.

Afte r ex ha us ti ng ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, Fl owe rs an d Dan na r fil ed pe ti ti on s

fo r writ s of ha be as co rp us un de r 28 U

. S

. C

. § 22 41

, al le gi ng th at th e sa nc ti on s

de pr iv ed th em of li be rty wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of la w, be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce

th at th ey co m

m it te d th e ch arg ed of

f e n s e

. To a ug m en t th e in ci de nt rep or t an d th e

de ci si on of th e he ari ng of fic er, th e ward en pr e s e n t e d e vi de nc e th at whe n in m at es

arri ve at th e Med ic al Cen te r, th ey are gi ve n a co p y o f a ha nd bo ok th at in cl ud es th e

fo ll owi ng st at em en t:

It is th e in m at e’s res po ns ib il i t y to ch eck hi s li vi ng area im m ed ia te ly

aft er bei ng as si gn ed th ere, an d to rep or t all da m ag e to th e Co rrec ti on al

Offi cer, Cas e Man ag er, or Co un se lo r. An i n mat e m ay be fin an ci al ly

l i a b le fo r an y da m ag e to hi s or he r pe rs on al li vi ng area an d i s

res po ns ib le for an y

co nt rab an d fo un d wi th in hi s p ers on al li vi ng area

.

A cap ta in who ov er se es co rr ec tio na l supe rv isi on at the Med ic al Cen te r de cl ared

th at Bu reau of Pri so ns Pro gr am St at em en t 52 70 .07 an d a fed eral reg ul at io n pr ov id e

-4

-th at “ in m at es ha ve th e res po ns ib il it y to ke ep th ei r area s free of c o n t r a b a nd .” The

Pro gr am St at em en t is no t i n t h e r eco rd or av ai la bl e th ro ug h th e Bu reau ’s web si te

.

The reg ul at io n, en ti tl ed “ In m at e rig ht s an d res po ns ib il it ie s,” st at es th at am on g an

in m at e ’s r e s p o ns ib il it ie s is “ to ke ep y ou r area free of co nt rab an d.” 28 C.F.R.

§ 5 41 .12 (20 09 ).

The di st ric t co ur t, ad op ti ng a rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of a m ag is tra te jud ge

,

di sm is se d th e pe ti ti on s. The co u r t de te rm in ed th at “ un de r th e ve ry lo w st an da rd

di ct at ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t” in S u p er in te nd en t v. Hil l

, 47 2 U.S. 44 5, 45 5- 56

(1 98 5)

, th ere was “ so m e ev id e n c e ” to su pp or t th e de ci si on s of th e he ari ng of fic er,

an d th at th e de ci si on s th us co m pl ie d wit h th e req ui rem en ts of du e pr oc es s. W e

rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f a § 22 41 pe ti ti on de no vo

. Se e Lo pe z- Lo pe z

v. Sa nd er s , 59 0 F .3d 90 5, 9 07 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

In Hil l

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d whe th er fin di ng s of a pr is on di sc ip li na ry

b o a rd th at res ul t in th e lo ss of go od ti m e cred it s m us t be su pp or te d by a c e r t a i n

am ou nt of ev id en ce in or de r to s a t i s f y d ue pr oc es s. The Co ur t ob se rv ed th at whi le

th e in m at e ha s a st ro ng in te res t in av oi di ng arb it rary de pr iv at io ns

, th at in te res t “ m us t

be acco m

m od at ed in th e di st in ct iv e s et ti ng of a pr is on

, whe re di sc ip li na ry

pr oc eed in gs ta ke pl ace in a cl os ed

, ti gh tl y co nt ro ll ed en vi ro nm en t pe op le d by th os e

who ha ve ch os en to vi ol at e th e cri m in al la w an d who ha ve b e e n l a wfu ll y

in carc erat ed fo r do in g so .” 47 2 U.S. at 45 4 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Afte r ci ti ng

th e in st it ut io n’s le gi ti m at e in te res ts

, in cl ud in g th at of “ av oi di ng bu rd en so m e

ad m in is tra ti ve req ui rem en ts th at m ig ht be su sc ep ti bl e to m an ip u l at io n,” th e Co ur t

he ld th at “ th e req ui rem en ts of du e pr o ces s are sa ti sf ie d if so m e ev id en ce su pp or ts

th e de ci si on by th e pr is on di sc ip li na ry bo ard to rev ok e go o d t i me c r ed it s.” Id

. at

45 5. Thi s “ so m e ev id en ce” st an da rd “ do es no t req ui re ex am in at io n of th e en ti re

reco rd , i nd ep en de nt as se ss m en t of th e cred ib il i t y o f wit ne ss es , o r weig hi ng of th e

ev id en ce.” Id

. If th ere is “ an y ev id en ce in th e reco rd ” th at co ul d su pp or t th e fin di ng

-5

-of th e di sc ip li na ry au th or it y

, th en th e sa nc ti on s co m po rt wit h du e pr oc es s. Id

. at 45 5-

56

.

The Co ur t in Hil l up he ld a st at e pr is on ’s rev oc at io n of go od ti m e cred it s fo r

th ree i nm at es who were s een fle ei ng th e sc en e of an as sa ul t, d es pi te th e co nc lu si on

of th e st at e co ur t th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t an in fere nc e th at m or e

th an on e of th e in m at es ha d st ru ck th e v i c t i m. Th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at whi le th e

ev id en ce “ m ig ht be ch arac te riz ed as m eag er, an d th ere was no di rect ev id en ce

id en ti fy in g a ny on e o f th ree in m at es as th e as sa il an t,” th e reco rd was no t so de vo id

of ev id en ce as to m ak e th e f i n di ng s of th e in st it ut io n wit ho ut su pp or t or ot he rwis e

arb it rary. Id

. a t 4 5 7

. Fl owe rs an d Dan na r di sa gr ee wit h th e “ so m e ev id en ce”

st an da rd an no un ced in Hil l , bu t ac kn owl ed ge th at it is bi nd in g o n t hi s co ur t.

The ward en he re arg ue s th at al l in m at es as si gn ed to Ro om 22 2 at th e Med ic al

Cen te r are co ll ect iv el y res po ns ib le fo r weap on s fo un d in th at ro om

. He co nt en ds th at

Fl owe rs an d Dan na r ha d a res po ns ib il it y un de r pr is on ru le s to ke ep th e area free of

co nt rab an d, an d th at th e di sc ov ery of weap on s in a co m m on area of th ei r ro om th us

co ns t i t u t e s “s om e ev id en ce” th at th ey po ss es se d th e weap on s. Thi s co ur t acce pt ed

a co ll ect iv e res po ns ib il it y th eo ry in Mas on v. Sa rg en t

, 89 8 F.2 d 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ),

whe re di sc ip li ne was im

po se d on on e in m at e ba se d on ev id e n c e fo un d in a lo ck er

bo x th at he sh ared wit h an ot he r in m at e who ad m it te d cu lp ab il it y

. Id

. at 68 0; se e al so

id

. at 68 0 (Hean ey

, J., di ss en ti ng ) (“ I wou ld

. . . ha ve no tro ub le in co nc ur rin g if the

pr is on ru le s m ad e Mas on res po ns ib le fo r an y it em s f o u n d i n t he joi nt lo ck er whi ch

v io la te d pr is on ru le s, bu t th e pr is on ru le s do no t so pr ov id e.”). Oth er c o u r t s

li ke wis e h av e rel ie d on co ll ect iv e cu lp ab il it y fo r co nt rab an d fo un d in a sh ared area

as “ so m e ev id en ce” to su pp or t s an ct io ns in pri so n d is ci pl in e cas es

. Se e S he lb y v.

W hi te ho us e

, 39 9 F. App ’x 12 1, 12 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Fla nn ag an v

. T a m e z

, 3 6 8 F.

App ’x 58 6, 58 8 & n.5 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Sa nt ia go v. Na sh

, 22 4 F. App ’x 17 5, 17 7 (3 d

Ci r. 20 07 ); Hami lt on v. O’Lea ry , 97 6 F .2d 34 1, 3 44 -4 5 (7 th Cir . 19 92 ).

-6

-Fl owe rs an d Dan na r do no t co nt es t th e ge ne ral pr op os it io n th at an in m at e’s

fai lu re to kee p hi s liv in g area free o f co nt rab an d m ay co ns ti tu te so m e ev id en ce of a

vi ol at io n whe n co nt rab an d is fo un d in th at area

. The ir ch al le ng e is na rro w e r

. The

in m at es arg ue th at be cau se th e weap on s were fo un d ou ts id e of t h e a rea fo r whi ch

th ey were resp on si bl e, an d th at th ey co ul d no t acces s t he lo cat io n wi th ou t v io la ti ng

a ru le ag ai ns t en te rin g a n “ un au th or iz ed area ,” th e d is co ve ry of t he weap on s i n t hi s

cas e was no t ev id en ce t ha t ju st ifi ed rev oc at io n o f go od ti m e cre di ts

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e rec or d in cl ud es “ so m e ev id en ce” th at th e st aff m em be r

di sc ov ered weap on s in a co m m on area of Ro om 22 2 fo r whi ch Fl owe rs an d Dann ar

sh ared res po ns ib il it y

. Th e i nc id en t rep or t refl ect s th at th e weap on s were fo un d

in si de Ro om 22 2, ab ov e th e en tr y d o o r

. The in m at es co nc ed e th at Ro om 22 2 is an

ei gh t-man do rm ro om to whi ch th ey were a ss ig ne d. W hi le th e in m at es as se rt th at

th e weap on s were fo un d “ ab ov e th e cei li ng ,” an d th at in m at es ha ve no res po ns ib il it y

or au th or it y to “ in sp ect th e area ab ov e th e cei li ng ti le s,” th ere is so m e ev id en ce th at

th e weap on s were fo un d be lo w th e cei li ng in an area th at co ul d be acce ss ed by

st an di ng on a lo ck er. A m es sa ge fro m th e st af f memb er, rep rin te d in th e he ari ng

of fic er’s de ci si o n

, s t a t e s th at th e weap on s were fo un d “ ag ai ns t th e wall , ju st be lo w

th e cei li ng .” The re was ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce th at th e weap on s ha d be en pl aced

be hi nd an el ect r i c a l c o n d u it by so m eo ne cl im bi ng on two lo ck ers

, whi ch were

de nt ed on to p an d arra ng ed be lo w th e pl ace of di sc ov ery i n a s ta ir- st ep fo rm at io n.

The st aff m em

be r rec ov ered on e o f th e weap on s b y st an di ng on th e lo ck ers

.

On th is reco rd

, we are no t co nv in ced th at th e he ari ng of fic e r l ack ed an y

ev id en ce to co nc lu de th at th e weap on s were fo un d in a co m m on area of th e ro om to

whi ch Flo wers an d Dan na r were a ss ig ne d. Th ere is ev id en ce t o re fu te th e in m at es ’

co nt en ti on th at th e weap on s wer e ab ov e th e cei li ng ti le s, and th e in m at es pr es en te d

no ev id en ce th at th e lo cat io n be twee n th e co nd ui t an d th e wall

, be lo w th e cei li ng

, is

an “ un au th or iz ed area ” th at in m at es can no t reach un de r pr is on ru le s. W e th us ne ed

-7

-n o t ad dr es s ho w t he pr is on m ay pr oc eed if co nt rab an d is di sc ov ered in an area th a t

is ou ts id e an in m at e’s li vi ng area an d o ff-l im it s t o i nm at es

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-