Case Name: John WARDA, Appellant, v. Marty C. ANDERSON, Warden, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-08
Citations: 143 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 04-2729
Parties: John WARDA, Appellant, v. Marty C. ANDERSON, Warden, Appellee.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 725–726

Head Matter:
John WARDA, Appellant, v. Marty C. ANDERSON, Warden, Appellee.
No. 04-2729.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2005.
Decided Aug. 8, 2005.
John Warda, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
Erika Mozangue, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate John Warda challenges the district court's dismissal of Warda's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the loss of good-time credits and other sanctions following a disciplinary determination he had possessed contraband. We affirm.
Contrary to Warda's argument, due process requires only the existence of "some evidence" to support the revocation of good-time credits. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (due process requirements satisfied if "some evidence" supports decision to revoke good-time credits). Having reviewed the district court's findings for clear error, we conclude the record supports the court's determination the disciplinary decision was based on some evidence. See Hayes v. Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72 n. 2 (8th Cir.1995). Among other things, the hearing officer considered an incident report describing how a cooler with Warda's name on it and containing contraband was found under his bed during a search of his cubicle. The officer also considered a memorandum which stated an FBI special agent had interviewed Warda and Warda's cubicle-mate, and had determined the items belonged to Warda.
Warda also argues the district court should have independently evaluated the credibility of the confidential informant (Cl) whose information was considered by the hearing officer, but this argument fails because "some evidence" other than the Cl information supports the disciplinary decision. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-57, 105 S.Ct. 2768; Espinoza v. Peterson, 283 F.3d 949, 952 (8th Cir.) (reviewing court must examine reason for non-disclosure and reliability of Cl only in cases where Cl information is needed to satisfy "some evidence" standard), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 870, 123 S.Ct. 277, 154 L.Ed.2d 119 (2002).
Given the existence of some evidence to support the disciplinary determination, Warda's remaining arguments about application of the constructive-possession rule and certain allegedly erroneous factual determinations are meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.