Opinion ID: 385769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasons for Guilty Finding

Text: 47 The District Court filed as a finding of fact that (t)he evidence at trial indicates that the defendants reasonably believed that provision of a transcript of the proceedings complied with the Constitution and regulations governing the requirements for statement of reasons. As above, our review of this finding must be under the narrow clearly erroneous standard. 48 Wolff explicitly requires that a  'written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons' for the disciplinary action be given. 5 Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-2979. The language of Wolff, with its explanation underlying the requirement, rendered the right to a written statement of evidence and reasons as clearly established at the time of Hayes' hearing. 6 Further, we believe that the members of the Committee should have known of that right. When the Supreme Court of the United States renders a decision on prison proceedings as it did in Wolff v. McDonnell, those involved in the conduct of such proceedings have a constitutional obligation to investigate and familiarize themselves with the Court's pronouncements. Moreover, the Illinois prison administration issued regulations in response to Wolff, applying its requirements, which reiterated the requirement of a written statement, and each member of the Committee admitted that he was familiar with these regulations. Thus, we find that each Committee member should have known and did know of the constitutional requirement to provide the statement described in Wolff. 49 The key question in resolving the immunity issue thus becomes whether the Committee members knew or should have known that what they provided was constitutionally insufficient. Although not explicitly so worded, we understand the District Court's use of the term reasonably believed in its finding of fact to indicate that the Committee members did not know, and could not have reasonably been expected to know, that they were not complying. We see no indication that the members actually knew that what they provided was inadequate, and so in reviewing this finding we focus on whether they should have known. 50 The test is an objective one. We must look at what the Committee gave Hayes and consider whether a prison disciplinary committee could reasonably have concluded that it complied with the requirement of Wolff. Here, Hayes was provided with a copy of the transcript 7 of the proceedings and a copy of the violation report (Resident Information Report) as written by Warden Wolff. The transcript stated that the guilty finding was based upon the Warden's violation report and the report of the special investigator. A brief summary of the investigator's findings were included in the report, based on a telephone conversation with the investigator. The Committee also noted that a full report of the investigator was to follow. The investigator's summary appearing in the transcript noted that Hayes called the meeting in the prison yard, that he was a ring leader, and a leader among the black residents. The investigator recommended that Hayes be transferred. 51 Whether the Committee should have known it violated Hayes' rights is a close question. If the Committee had provided merely the Warden's Resident Information Report as the basis for its finding, it would be clearly erroneous to find that the Committee reasonably believed it was complying with Wolff, in light of Regulation No. 804(II)(B)(9). 8 But more was provided here. The transcript which Hayes received covered the entire hearing and included the summary of the investigator's report. 9 It is the presence of this report in particular which tips the scales in our review of the District Court's finding on the immunity issue. If appropriately detailed and supported, and properly considered, such an outside investigative report may well constitute adequate basis for a disciplinary decision. Further, the Committee may have believed that it was incorporating by reference the full written report which was to follow. Although the Committee's statement provided to Hayes, including the transcript's summary of the investigator's conclusions, is constitutionally insufficient under Wolff, it does contain conclusions of the investigator upon which the Committee might have reasonably believed, at that time, constituted adequate basis for its decision. Thus, in light of the language of the regulation, and the sparse interpretation of Wolff at the time of Hayes' hearing, we cannot say, within the scope of the clearly erroneous standard of review, that the Committee should have known that what it provided violated the Wolff requirement. And even though the reasons expressed in the transcript fall far short of what would be necessary to establish conspiracy to incite to riot and commit mutinous acts, we cannot consider it bad faith merely because non-lawyer committee members err in their perception of the amount of evidence necessary to establish a violation. 52 Accepting the District Court's findings regarding both the denial of witnesses and the failure to give adequate reasons as not clearly erroneous, we conclude that the members of the Committee acted in good faith and are, therefore, immune from money damages.