IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2017-CP-00743-COA JERMAINE HILL APPELLANT

v. SUPERINTENDENT RONALD KING, TIRAH WESLEY, WARDEN BRIAN LADNER AND OFFICER LT. GLORIA HOLLIS APPELLEES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W ILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JERMAINE HILL (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DARRELL CLAYTON BAUGHN NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 03/06/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WESTBROOKS, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. J e r maine Hill a

ppeals t he decision of the Rankin County C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h

a f f i rm ed the d ecision of the Mississippi Departm e n t o f Corrections (MDOC), f i nding Hill guilty of possessing a green substance, a n iPod, and an iPod charger while in the custody of the MDOC. Hill challenges this decision on appeal. U p o n r e v i e w , we f ind no error and af f irm

. FACTS ¶2. Hill was an inm a te in the c ustody of the MDOC. During his incarceration, on January 4, 2017, a green substance, an iPod, and an iPod charger were f ound under his bed. Becauseall of these are considered c o n t r a b a n d under the MDOC policy , Hill received two ruleviolation reports (RVRs). Th e r e p o r t s listed f our of f i cers as witnesses t o t he contraband hidden in Hill’s cell. Hill was g iven notice of the RVRs, and he signed f o r them

. He also requested a witness, was read his rights, received a f ull investigation, a nd had a hearing on January 11, 2017. ¶3. At the hearing, Hill presented a statem en t f rom Marcus Lester, who stated that the
green substance was spice and that it w as p ut t here by another inm ate. Lester also s tated that “Pelico” w ould conf

irm his statem ent. P elico neve r g a ve a statem e nt. Hill provided no def ense to his possession of the iPod or the iPod c h arger. At the e n d of the hearing, Hill was f ound guilty

and ordered to lose privileges f or eighteen m o nths. ¶4. Hill f

iled an appeal through the M DOC’s Adm inistrative Rem edy P r o g r a m (ARP). The warden reviewed all the evidence and ultim a tely denied Hill’s request. ¶5. On Marc h 3 1 , 2 0 1 7 , H i l l f iled a “com

plaint,” appealing the ARP decision to the circuit court. The MDOC m oved to dism iss, stating that H i ll h ad f a iled to serve process
t h rough t he Mississippi O f f ice of the Attorney General as r equired by Mississippi R u l e o f Civil Procedure 4(d)(5). The c ircuit court i m m ediately ordered the MDOC to r espond to Hil l ’ s c o mplaint and provide any relevant docum ents f rom the M DOC. The MDOC

com plied. Ultim ately , the court dism issed Hill’s com plaint, f inding t hat the MDOC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not a rbitrary or capricious, was within the scope of

the powers of

the MDOC, and did not violate Hill’s constitutional rights.

2¶6. Hill f iled the instant appeal. DISCUSSION ¶7. “ T h e d e c i s i o n o f a n a d m inistrative a gency shall not be disturbed unless [ it i s ] unsupported by substantial evidence; arbitrary or capricious; b ey ond the agency ’s scope or powers; or violative of the c onstitutional or statutory rights of the a g grieved party

. ” Edwards v. Booker , 796 So. 2d 991, 994 (¶10) (Miss. 2001) (citation om itted). ¶8. The MDOC’s decision – as to bo t h of H ill’s RVRs – was supported b y substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or c apricious, w as not b ey ond the agency ’s scope or powers, and did not violate h is constitutional or statutory r ights. Hil l w a s p r o v i d e d a written notice of both violations, the right to call witnesses on his b ehalf , a hearing by a n i m

partial hearing of f icer, and assistance in preparing f or that hearing. See W

olff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 564-72 ( 1974) (discussing a prisoner’s due-process r ights f or a disciplinary proceeding). As
to t he f irst RVR, H ill provided no evidence or w itnesses t o ref ute his possession of the iPod

or i Pod charger. As to the second RVR, Hill denied ownership of the green substance. The MDOC considered L ester’s statem ent but f ound t hat Hill was guilty b ased on the weight of all the evidence. ¶9. I n c o n c l u s i o n , h a v i n g r e v i ewed the record, we f i nd the MDOC’s decision w a s supported b y s u bstantial evidence, was within t he agency ’s scope or powers, was not arbitrary or capricious, and did not violate Hill’s constitutional or statutory rights. W e af f irm the circuit court’s judgm ent.

3¶10. AFFIRMED.

LE E , C .J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., B ARNES, CARLTON, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

4