Opinion ID: 775066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliatory Discipline Claims

Text: 11 There are three claims of retaliatory discipline at issue, one in September of 1996, one in February of 1997, and another in March of 1997. Plaintiff contends that the District Court erred in holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary committee's determination that he had violated prison rules on those three occasions. We agree. In our view, the record fails to contain some evidence that the disciplinary actions taken against Mr. Moore were for the actual violation of prison rules. 12 A conduct violation report completed by Investigator Plaster regarding the February 1997 conduct charge states, 13 Connie Martin, visitor of inmate Ricky McCabe... was found to be in possession of narcotics inside [Jefferson City]. An investigation of this incident revealed that inmate Edward Moore conspired to have the narcotics brought into [Jefferson City]. This places inmate Edward Moore... in violation of rule #11 (Conspiracy to introduce narcotics into a correctional facility[)] [sic]. For further information see investigation file located in the [Jefferson City] Investigator's Office. 14 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Suggestions in Support, Exhibit E, at 1. Neither the referenced investigative file nor a summary of its contents appears in the record. There is no other information regarding any of the underlying facts in the record. All we have is Mr. Plaster's report. It contains accusations, but is not based on personal knowledge. It does not even give the name of any witness who saw the alleged violation. In our opinion, this report is only an accusation. It does not qualify as evidence. 15 As to the September 1996 disciplinary charge, the record contains a conduct violation report prepared by Investigator David Williams which states, 16 It has discovered [sic] through investigation that inmate Moore, Edward... has been trafficking narcotics in [Jefferson City]. For further information, see confidential file #204 in the investigator[']s office. 17 Inmate Moore was also administered a CVSA exam, or lie detector test, by investigator Sam Plaster, about his involvement in drug trafficking in [Jefferson City]. Investigator Plaster stated that inmate Moore failed the CVSA exam. For further information see investigator Plaster[']s report. 18 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Suggestions in Support, Exhibit C, at 5. A disciplinary action report states that some of the evidence relied on in finding Mr. Moore guilty was the observations of the reporting officer (we assume this means Investigator Williams) and his statement that [Mr. Moore was] trafficking in controlled substances within the institution. Id. at 7. No other evidence regarding the underlying facts appears in the record. 19 We do not believe such conclusory statements, without more, constitute some evidence of plaintiff's having violated prison rules, especially in light of his claim that Investigator Plaster told him that the rule 11 charges were in retaliation for his grievances and civil actions against Investigator Plaster. Mr. Moore also claims that he passed the lie detector test, but Investigator Plaster indicated that the test results showed deception. There appears to be an issue of fact as to what the test showed. Ordinarily the Investigator's statement of the test results would be some evidence, but here that very statement is itself alleged to be retaliatory. The disciplinary action report refers to observations by Investigator Williams, but the context indicates that observe is being used in the sense of said, not saw. Again, the conduct violation report is an accusation only. It is not evidence. The confidential file referred to is not in the record before us. 20 This case is distinguishable from other cases in which we have found that some evidence supported the challenged disciplinary action. See Cowans v. Warren, 150 F.3d 910, 912 (8th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff's complaint containing abusive language was some evidence of a violation of a rule against using abusive language); Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (officer's affidavit, disciplinary report, and reliable confidential informants were some evidence of a rule violation); Henderson, 29 F.3d at 469 (prison officer's undisputed first-hand account of inmate's misconduct was some evidence of a violation); Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1990) (plaintiff's admission to committing the offensive conduct was some evidence of actual rule violation); Brown v. Frey, 807 F.2d 1407, 1414 (8th Cir. 1986) (prison officials' memorandum implicating plaintiff as a participant in a prison riot to which they were witnesses was some evidence of rule violation); Russell v. Hopkins, 76 F.3d 382, 1996 WL 47128, at  (8th Cir. Feb. 7, 1996) (per curiam) (unrebutted evidence of rule change disallowing possession of razor blades constituted some evidence); Green v. Lombardi, 36 F.3d 1100, 1994 WL 521105, at  (8th Cir. Sept. 26, 1994) (per curiam) (evidence found in plaintiff's cell, canteen records, and inmate's grievance was some evidence of actual infraction). 21 We do not hold that the disciplinary committee, on either occasion, did not have sufficient evidence at the disciplinary hearing to determine that Mr. Moore had violated prison rules. Perhaps defendants on remand can produce such evidence. We hold only that the record, as presented on appeal, lacks any evidence that the disciplinary action was warranted. 22 As to Mr. Moore's claim that his placement in TASC in March of 1997 was retaliatory, we think that a similar outcome is appropriate. The record shows that one of the reasons for confinement was an alleged rule 11 violation, but no evidence to support the accusation appears.