Opinion ID: 787387
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Requirement of Some Reliable Evidence to Support Prison Discipline

Text: 68 In Superintendent v. Hill, the Supreme Court ruled that prison discipline decisions affecting an inmate's liberty interest cannot be imposed arbitrarily but must be supported by some evidence in the record. 472 U.S. at 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768. Judicial review of this some evidence standard is narrowly focused. As the Supreme Court has explained, it does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board. Id. at 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768. However narrow this sufficiency question, it presents an issue of law subject to our plenary review. Cf. United States v. Henry, 325 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction is reviewed de novo ); Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir.2002) (reviewing sufficiency of substantial evidence determinations de novo ); Heard v. United States, 348 F.2d 43, 44 (D.C.Cir.1964) (per curiam) (observing that the question whether the evidence in a particular case constitutes `some evidence' of insanity ... is a question of law for the court). 9 69 In a recent discussion of the some evidence standard, this court observed that only reliable evidence can constitute some evidence. Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d at 488. The principle is not new. A reliability inquiry has long been required when confidential source information is relied on to satisfy the some evidence standard. As we explained in Giakoumelos v. Coughlin, an informant's testimony implicating an accused inmate in charged misconduct can support a some-evidence finding as long as there has been `some examination of indicia relevant to [an informant's] credibility.' 88 F.3d at 61 (quoting Russell v. Scully, 15 F.3d 219, 223 (2d Cir.1993)); accord Taylor v. Rodriguez, 238 F.3d at 194. 70