Opinion ID: 667781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Call Witnesses at a Disciplinary Hearing

Text: 16 Carr contends that defendants denied him due process at his disciplinary hearing by denying his request to call as a witness the technician who performs the urinalysis test. This contention lacks merit. 17 An inmate does not have an unrestricted right to present evidence or to have all the witnesses he requests called at his disciplinary hearing. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Prison officials have the discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable time limits. Id. 18 Here, prison policies require that the operator's checklist and the urinalysis printout be forwarded to the inmate. We agree with the district court that the operator's presence at the disciplinary hearing is redundant when inmates are already provided with the operator's checklist. Moreover, as the district court noted, allowing prisoners to cross-examine the test operator at every disciplinary proceeding involving urinalysis testing could result in the preclusion of a speedy and efficient disciplinary process. Given these circumstances, Carr's interest in calling the test operator as a witness was outweighed by the institution's interest in order and discipline. Accordingly, the defendants did not violate Carr's right to due process by prohibiting him from calling the test operator as a witness at his disciplinary hearing. See id. at 566.