Opinion ID: 771827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Supporting the Determination

Text: 26 Although the issue of notice is sufficient to warrant a remand, we are also troubled by the district court's conclusion that the decision supporting Taylor's close custody designation was based on some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985) (holding that to satisfy due process, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board); Connecticut Dep't of Correction Admin. Directive 6.14, ¶9B (incorporating a some evidence standard). 27 In the Inmate Security Risk Group Member/Safety Threat Member determination form, Hearing Officer Soto recites that her conclusion is based in part on the confidential information received from informants. The form also indicates that she relied upon an incident on July 27, 1994 when Taylor was housed at Hartford Correctional Center. No details about that incident are included in the findings. Further, while the hearing officer refers to attached statements in connection with the confidential information and the Hartford incident, no such statements were attached to the copies of the determination form filed with the district court. 28 To support a finding based on confidential information, we have held that an informant's testimony will suffice at least where there has been some examination of indicia relevant to an informant's credibility. See Giakoumelos, 88 F.3d at 61. Requiring an independent credibility assessment ensures not only a fair hearing and discipline based on reliable evidence, but also places a minimal burden on prison officials conducting such hearings, with the assurance that judicial review is available. 29 In the case at hand, no such assessment is included in the determination form regarding the reliability of the confidential informants upon whose statements Lt. Soto based Taylor's placement into close custody. Nor does the form indicate that she reviewed the confidential informants' statements. While Capt. Shipman's affidavit on defendants' summary judgment motion states he did determine reliability, the determination form lists as witnesses neither Shipman nor any prison official who had contact with the confidential informants. Shipman's affidavit submitted to the district court two years after Taylor's hearing does not serve as a suitable basis for making a credibility determination. 30 Moreover, even though Lt. Soto also relied upon the details of an incident involving plaintiff at Hartford Correctional Center, the statement to which she refers was not submitted to the district court or to us. Without such documentation, combined with the absence of any contemporaneous findings as to the reliability of the confidential informants, we are left to speculate how the decision to place Taylor in close custody was supported by some evidence as required by federal law and state regulations. Thus, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants was improper for this reason as well.