Opinion ID: 424928
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Committee Summaries

Text: 68 The principal issue in this appeal concerns the adequacy of the Adjustment Committee Summaries. Administrative Regulation 804 requires that these summaries enunciate the basis for the Committee's decision and specify the evidence underlying the ruling. See Aikens v. Lash, 514 F.2d at 60-61. This requirement is not to be taken lightly. The Supreme Court has written: 69 [T]he actions taken at such proceedings may involve review by other bodies. They might furnish the basis of a decision by the Director of Corrections to transfer an inmate to another institution because he is considered to be incorrigible by reason of frequent intentional breaches of discipline, ... and are certainly likely to be considered by the state parole authorities in making parole decisions. Written records of proceedings will thus protect the inmate against collateral consequences based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the original proceeding. Further, as to the disciplinary action itself, the provision for a written record helps to insure that administrators, faced with possible scrutiny by state officials and the public, and perhaps even the courts, where fundamental constitutional rights may have been abridged, will act fairly. Without written records, the inmate will be at a severe disadvantage in propounding his own cause to or defending himself from others. It may be that there will be occasions when personal or institutional safety is so implicated that the statement may properly exclude certain items of evidence, but in that event the statement should indicate the fact of the omission. Otherwise, we perceive no conceivable rehabilitative objective or prospect of prison disruption that can flow from the requirement of these statements. 70 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 565, 94 S.Ct. at 2979 (footnotes omitted). 71 In Hayes I, 555 F.2d at 631-33 & n. 1, this court rejected as inadequate an adjustment committee summary which stated: Based on our review of the violation report and the report by the special investigator it is our motion that we find Mr. Hayes guilty as charged. We find that Mr. Hayes is guilty of conspiracy to incite to riot and commit mutinous acts. The committee report to Inmate Hayes stated: The Committee's decision is based on the violation report as written and upon the report by the special investigator which during your absence was made part of the record. See United States v. Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, 635 F.2d at 659. The Hayes I court stated that the general finding, by merely incorporating the violation report and the special investigator's report, does not ensure that prison officials will act fairly. Nor will this finding protect against subsequent collateral effects based on misunderstanding of the initial decision. Hayes I, 555 F.2d at 633. In Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d at 1286-87, this court rejected as inadequate a summary which stated: We recognize and consider the resident[']s statement[,] however[,] we accept the reporting officer[']s charges. The statement was deemed inadequate because [i]t did not mention what evidence the reporting officer relied on, the investigatory report containing exculpatory evidence, or [an] earlier report. It gave no clear indication of why the reporting officer was to be believed rather than [the inmate] or [the victim, whose testimony favored the inmate]. The court stated that the defendants, in failing to provide Chavis with a written statement giving facts relied on and reasons for the conclusions reached, ... violated Chavis' due process rights under Wolff, and also his right not to be found guilty except by an appropriate quantum of evidence. Id. at 1287. 72 We have looked long and hard at the eighteen summaries of the evidence before us. We are forced to conclude that none of them, standing alone, fulfills the essential functions stated in Wolff. Moreover, the summaries violate A.R. 804, which states that [i]t will not be sufficient for the Committee's decision to simply adopt and copy the exact wording of the Resident Disciplinary Report, and violate the Due Process Clause, which requires the Committee to state not merely how it acts, but also why it acts in a particular manner. Many of the summaries are even less specific than the reports found constitutionally deficient in Hayes I. The phrases based on all available evidence, or all evidence presented are conclusory; they do not disclose what evidence forms the bases of the Committee rulings. The Committee apparently gives credence to the resident disciplinary report in almost every case, but does not admit to doing so in its summaries. Also, no reasons are given for discounting the inmates' contradictory evidence. 4 See Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d at 1287; see generally Kyle v. Hanberry, 677 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir.1982) (administrative record must reflect how disciplinary committee concluded that an unidentified informant was credible and reliable). 73 Evaluating the form summaries as a whole by combining the sections Record of Proceedings with the sections Basis for Decision/Evidence Relied Upon rescues two of the eighteen summaries from constitutional inadequacy. In the section Record of Proceedings for Plaintiff Jones, the Committee noted in part: Resident states he struck resident due to he owed him money. In the section Basis for Decision/Evidence Relied Upon, the Committee noted residents testimony given. Because there was no conflict between the resident disciplinary report and testimony at the Committee hearing, it can be assumed that the Committee relied on Plaintiff Jones' own testimony to find him guilty. Similarly, the Record of Proceedings for the February 4, 1980, hearing on Plaintiff Tedder states in part: resident states he was not going to be assigned with a Black, and this is why he refused [his housing assignment]. The plaintiff thus admitted his infraction, and the Basis for Decision notes: Residents testimony given. It therefore can be assumed that the Committee relied on Plaintiff Tedder's admission to find him guilty, though the summary does not so state. Accordingly, the summary for Plaintiff Jones and the summary for Plaintiff Tedder's February 4, 1980, hearing satisfy minimum constitutional requirements. The district court's ruling on these two summaries is reversed. 74 In the sixteen remaining summaries the inmates either denied guilt or refused to answer the charges. Therefore, even reading the summaries as a whole provides no clue as to why the Committee acted as it did. Accordingly, in those sixteen instances the judgment of the district court holding the summaries constitutionally inadequate is affirmed. 75 The line between constitutional adequacy and inadequacy is a fine, but important one. When the Committee writes based on all available evidence the resident is guilty, no agency or court can discern the basis for the Committee's rulings. If, however, the Committee writes resident is lying, or the guard saw him therefore ..., or resident admits he committed the act charged, or resident does not refute charges, or another statement establishing the evidence underlying its decision, then the inmate is protected from a mischaracterization of the disciplinary action when it comes under review. 5 76 Prisoners enjoy privileges and rewards which can be taken away when they misbehave. When a prisoner loses the opportunities to shower daily, exercise daily, visit with other prisoners, use the library, watch television, and visit the commissary, he has lost much. Each aspect of the freedoms most of us take for granted becomes more precious as the totality of freedom is reduced. Forfeiting good conduct time credit is perhaps the most serious loss. Prisoners thus must be protected from arbitrary actions extinguishing their privileges. The surest protection is an impartial decisionmaker. And the integrity of that decisionmaker can be insured only if she or he enunciates the bases for her or his actions. The Committee summaries before us do not satisfy that minimal requirement.