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

Heading: Impartial Investigation

Text: Mr. Diaz alleges that certain army regulations give him the right to an impartial pre-hearing investigation, and that he was deprived of this right in connection with the three disciplinary hearings at issue. Prison regulations are “primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of a prison. [They are] not designed to confer rights on inmates.” Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 481-82 (1995). Where a liberty or property interest has been infringed, the process which is due under the United States Constitution is that measured by the due process clause, not prison regulations. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill , 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (“[O]nce it is determined that the Due Process Clause applies, the question remains what process is due. The answer to that question is not to be found in the [state] statute.”) (quotation and citation omitted); Hulen v. Yates , 322 F.3d 1229, 1247 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[O]nce the property right is established, it is purely a matter of federal constitutional law whether the procedure afforded was adequate.”); see also Shakur v. Selsky , 391 F.3d 106, 119 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[R]egardless of state procedural guarantees, the only process due an inmate is that minimal process guaranteed by the Constitution.”). An adequate prehearing investigation is not among the minimum due process protections identified by Wolff and Hill . See Whitford v. Boglino , 63 F.3d 527, 532 (7th Cir. 1995) (per -7- curiam) (“[Plaintiff] has no federal due process right to a prehearing investigation.”); Brown v. Frey , 889 F.2d 159, 170-71 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that prisoner had not shown any clearly established constitutional right to an adequate investigation). The district court did not err in denying the writ with regard to this claim.