Opinion ID: 166658
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impartial Decisionmaker

Text: A disciplinary decisionmaker must be impartial. See Gwinn v. Awmiller , 354 F.3d 1211, 1220 (10th Cir.) (citing Wolff , 418 U.S. at 592 (Marshall, J., concurring)), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 181 (2004); see also Mitchell v. Maynard , 80 F.3d 1433, 1446 (10th Cir. 1996) (indicating that a challenge to a factfinder’s neutrality implicates the fundamental right to be heard). Mr. Diaz alleges that one of his hearings was before a decisionmaker who could not be impartial. He states that he had several disputes with the board member while he worked for him on a prior work detail, and that as a result of Mr. Diaz filed a complaint against the board member with the Office of the Inspector General, alleging that the board member had subjected him to personal harassment. Allegations of bias should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Gwinn , 354 F.3d at 1220. “Careful scrutiny of disqualification claims is grounded in legitimate considerations of prison administration.” Id. at 1221. “From a practical standpoint, requiring each staff member who is the subject of a separate lawsuit to disqualify himself from sitting in judgment of that inmate would heavily tax the working capacity of the prison staff.” Redding v. Fairman , 717 F.2d 1105, 1113 (7th Cir. 1983) (quoted in Gwinn , 354 F.3d at 1221). -4- Mr. Diaz’s allegations against the board member do not indicate that the board member had any personal involvement with the matter at issue in the hearing. “[D]ue process is satisfied as long as no member of the disciplinary board has been involved in the investigation or prosecution of the particular case, or has had any other form of personal involvement in the case.” Wolff , 418 U.S. at 592 (Marshall, J., concurring). In addition, while Mr. Diaz alleges that the board president “should have been aware” of his conflicts with the board member and thus should have ensured impartiality, R. Doc. 13 at 7, there is no indication that Mr. Diaz challenged the board member’s impartiality at the time of the hearing. We do not believe that the district court erred in denying relief on this claim.