Opinion ID: 373420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Statements to the Hearing Committee

Text: 31 Rhodes raises a second due process objection to the disciplinary proceeding in his ninth claim. According to this claim, after he and his inmate assistant left the area of the hearing committee, a security officer, Charles D. Rodgers, spoke to the committee about Rhodes's misconduct. In granting summary judgment for defendants, the court noted that Rhodes has not alleged in his complaint or in any of his affidavits that he had any personal knowledge of the subject of Captain Rodgers' address to the Committee. From this the court concluded that Rhodes would be unable to prove any facts in support of his contention. 32 As a preliminary matter, we must note the error of the district court's basic approach to the summary judgment motion. Rule 56(c) says that the court shall consider whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule does not provide for summary judgment when the district court merely concludes that the opposing party lacks the ability to submit further evidence in support of his contentions. 33 In support of the grant of summary judgment, appellees point to the statement that Rodgers made in his affidavit: I did not give testimony or recommendations of the disposition of misconduct number 16039 which was written on inmate Jerry Rhodes. They also point to the affidavit of the chairman of the hearing committee, Captain Wicker, which supports Rodgers's statement: Rodgers did not participate in the hearing committee. 34 The contents of some other affidavits, however, support Rhodes's allegations. The affidavit of an inmate named Ancell Hamm states that Hamm observed the hearing area after Rhodes and his inmate assistant had left and saw Captain Rodgers standing before the Hearing Committee and talking to them. Further evidence shows that Rodgers had previously formed an intention or disposition to speak to the committee about the misconduct. Rhodes's inmate assistant said in his affidavit that just prior to his and Rhodes's departure from the hearing area Captain Rodgers stated that he had something to say about this hearing. In Rhodes's own affidavit, he reports seeing Rodgers read the misconduct report, discuss it with other prison officials, and show signs of disapproval of Rhodes's misconduct. Evidence of a person's intent or disposition is admissible to show that the person subsequently acted in conformity with that intention or disposition. See Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706 (1892). From these affidavits a factfinder could conclude that Rodgers addressed the committee on the subject of Rhodes's misconduct. Therefore, Rhodes has shown the existence of a genuine issue of fact. 35 Furthermore, the issue is material to Rhodes's claim that the hearing procedures failed to meet the requirements of due process. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court held that due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding requires a 'written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons' for the disciplinary action. Id. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2979 (Quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). In order to ensure adequate review of a hearing committee's decision and to protect a prisoner from undue collateral consequences of a committee's decision, Wolff requires that the statement be complete unless exigent circumstances require special exclusions. The report of the hearing committee in Rhodes's case makes no mention of either Rodgers's testimony or any omissions. If, in fact, the committee heard and considered Rodgers's testimony, the Wolff requirement of a complete statement of evidence relied upon has not been met. The grant of summary judgment on this claim must be vacated.