Opinion ID: 204386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural Due Process Challenge

Text: Mr. Jordan also contends that the district court erroneously concluded that his procedural due process rights were not violated by the BOP disciplinary proceedings against him. Mr. Jordan claims that the BOP violated his procedural due process rights in the following ways: (1) he was not provided with one of the BOP officers’ written statements before the DHO hearing and his inability to access that evidence deprived him of the opportunity to prepare his defense; (2) his staff representative rendered inadequate assistance in failing to identify and interview witnesses, particularly because Mr. Jordan was in solitary confinement throughout the disciplinary proceedings and could not do so himself; (3) he was denied the right to call witnesses; (4) the DHO was biased in favor of BOP witnesses and presumed that they all were credible; and (5) the DHO failed to consider the evidence that Mr. Jordan presented before rendering judgment. It is well-settled that an inmate has a protected liberty interest in good-time credits and that those credits may not be revoked without the minimal procedural safeguards afforded by the Due Process Clause. Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 811 (10th Cir. 2007); see also Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 453–56 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. -11- 539, 563–67 (1974). The Supreme Court has enumerated those minimum safeguards as follows: Wolff held that the inmate must receive: (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454 (discussing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563–67); see also Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1445 (10th Cir. 1996). Additionally, to comport with the minimum procedural due process requirements, the findings of the prison disciplinary board must be supported by “some evidence in the record.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454–57; accord Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445. Although Mr. Jordan does not frame his arguments according to the Wolff standards, he does not dispute that he received advance written notice of the charges against him or that the DHO issued a written statement explaining the reasons for the disciplinary action and citing the evidence upon which it had relied. Mr. Jordan’s arguments instead appear to relate to his opportunity to present evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence that supports the DHO’s finding. See Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445 (“Our review, however, is limited to whether the three steps mandated by Wolff were followed and whether there was some evidence to support the disciplinary committee’s findings.”). We address each of Mr. Jordan’s claims in turn. -12-
We read the following arguments raised by Mr. Jordan as falling under the Wolff standard concerning the opportunity to present evidence: Mr. Jordan allegedly was not provided with a written statement from Officer Wilfredo Nestegard, which impaired his ability to prepare a defense; his staff representative allegedly failed to help him gather evidence and interview witnesses; and the DHO did not permit him to call certain witnesses. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we conclude that Mr. Jordan had an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence to the DHO. First, the district court rejected Mr. Jordan’s contention that he was denied access to Officer Nestegard’s written statement concerning the incident and that this impaired his ability to prepare a defense. Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Jordan did not receive a copy of Officer Nestegard’s written statement (a fact that Respondent disputes), the court concluded that Mr. Jordan’s due process rights were not violated because Officer Nestegard’s statement “d[id] not contain any information that [was] not already provided in the incident report, other than the mere fact that Officer Nestegard also witnessed [the] incident.” R., Vol. II, at 149. The court further found that “it [was] apparent that [Mr. Jordan] was already aware that Officer Nestegard was present on the SHU range during the incident, and[,] therefore, could effectively defend against this officer’s testimony without access to the [statement].” Id. -13- Mr. Jordan argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred in concluding that Mr. Jordan was already aware of Officer Nestegard’s presence during the incident. He does not, however, challenge the court’s finding that Officer Nestegard’s written statement merely reiterated the information already contained in the incident report. We have reviewed Officer Nestegard’s statement, and we agree with the district court’s conclusion that, even if Mr. Jordan was denied access to the statement prior to the DHO hearing, this had no impact on his ability to prepare a defense. Officer Nestegard’s statement and the incident report relay the same information, and Mr. Jordan had access to the report. Moreover, Mr. Jordan was aware that another officer was present during the incident, even if he did not know that officer’s identity. We therefore conclude that the record contains no evidence that Mr. Jordan’s ability to “marshal the facts in his defense” was somehow impaired. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. As to Mr. Jordan’s claim that his staff representative failed to help him gather evidence and interview witnesses, the district court held that an inmate does not have a general constitutional right to representation during the disciplinary process. The court further concluded that due process requires that an inmate receive assistance from a staff representative only where the inmate is illiterate or the issue is so complex that it is unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the necessary evidence. The court found that those factors were not applicable to Mr. Jordan. We agree. We find it significant that Mr. Jordan -14- received assistance from the BOP staff representative of his choice, even though due process principles clearly did not oblige the prison to provide him with such assistance. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 315 (1976); Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570; Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 1990). Mr. Jordan has no viable due process claim about the quality of assistance that he received from the staff representative. The district court also rejected Mr. Jordan’s claim that the DHO did not permit him to call certain witnesses, thereby violating his due process rights. However, the right to call and present witnesses under Wolff is not absolute— “rather[,] it is ‘circumscribed by the necessary mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.’” Howard, 487 F.3d at 812 (quoting Baxter, 425 U.S. at 321). “And while prison officials must consider an inmate’s request to call or confront a particular witness . . . on an individualized basis, errors made by prison officials in denying witness testimony at official hearings are subject to harmless error review.” Id. at 813 (omission in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Mr. Jordan challenges the DHO’s refusal to call Officer Nestegard, various witnesses who did not directly observe the incident, and other unnamed inmates who were allegedly nearby at the time at the incident. With regard to Mr. Jordan’s request to call Officer Nestegard as a witness, the district -15- court concluded that because the officer provided a written statement to the DHO, Mr. Jordan’s “claim that he was denied the ability to call this witness is at best no more than a claim of harmless error, as any information that this officer possessed was before the DHO.” 6 R., Vol. II, at 143. We agree. As for the other witnesses requested by Mr. Jordan, the district court adopted the DHO’s finding that Mr. Jordan “ha[d] made no showing that the testimony of [the remaining requested] witnesses was in any way relevant to the issue of whether he stated to Officer Quenelle, ‘[t]his is the kind of stuff that makes me want to stab someone,’” because they were not present during the incident. R., Vol. II, at 144. Mr. Jordan has not established that this finding was clearly erroneous. Moreover, we conclude that any error by the DHO in excluding those witnesses was harmless on account of Mr. Jordan’s failure to demonstrate the relevance of their testimony. 7 6 As the district court correctly noted, Mr. Jordan did not have a constitutional right to cross-examine Officer Nestegard even if he had testified in person before the DHO. See Baxter, 425 U.S. at 320–22; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 567–69; see also Howard, 487 F.3d at 812–13. 7 It appears that the DHO and the district court determined that the other witnesses requested by Mr. Jordan, including the unnamed fellow inmates, were irrelevant because they did not witness the incident. Although Mr. Jordan argues that the DHO denied his request to call those inmates solely because he could not identify them by name, the record does not support that assertion. Regardless, because Mr. Jordan has not demonstrated that the testimony of those unnamed inmates would have affected the outcome of his case, any error by the DHO in refusing to call those witnesses was harmless. See Grossman v. Bruce, 447 F.3d 801, 805 (10th Cir. 2006). Mr. Jordan also argued below that the excluded witnesses’ testimony was (continued...) -16- See Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[A] [BOP] hearing officer does not violate due process by excluding irrelevant or unnecessary testimony.”). Consequently, we conclude that Mr. Jordan had an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence such that the minimum requirements of procedural due process were satisfied. 2. The Existence of Some Evidence to Support the Conviction We interpret Mr. Jordan’s remaining arguments as challenges to the district court’s conclusion that there was “some evidence” to support his disciplinary conviction. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 454–57; Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445. “Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455–56. “A disciplinary board’s decision 7 (...continued) relevant to his retaliation claim—that is, his theory that the disciplinary charge was falsified by BOP officials in retaliation for his “jailhouse lawyering activities.” R., Vol. I, at 11, 17–19 (Application for A Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed Oct. 20, 2006); R., Vol. II, at 144. The district court rejected that claim, and Mr. Jordan does not challenge the court’s conclusion on appeal. Respondent argues that Mr. Jordan has therefore waived his retaliation claim, and Mr. Jordan does not dispute that assertion; thus, we are confident Mr. Jordan has intentionally relinquished this claim on appeal. We therefore treat any retaliation claim as waived (i.e., abandoned), and will not consider it. See, e.g., United States v. Springfield, 337 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2003). -17- can be upheld by a reviewing court ‘even if the evidence supporting the decision is meager.’” Howard, 487 F.3d at 812 (quoting Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445). That standard is easily met in this case. We find that Mr. Jordan’s arguments are unpersuasive and conclude that there is “some evidence” in the record that supports his conviction. In advocating for a contrary outcome, Mr. Jordan first contends that the DHO was biased in favor of BOP witnesses and had a “blanket policy” of presuming that they are credible. 8 Aplt. Opening Br. at 28. However, there is no evidence in the record that the DHO found that BOP witnesses were categorically credible; the record only indicates that the DHO concluded that they were credible in this case. In contrast, the DHO found Mr. Jordan’s statements “unconvincing.” R., Vol. I, at 67 (DHO Report, dated Apr. 10, 2006). It is not our role to independently assess witness credibility, and we will not do so here. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455–56. Mr. Jordan also contends that the DHO failed to consider the evidence that he presented before it rendered judgment. Mr. Jordan argues that he submitted his own written statement to the DHO along with the statement of Mr. Scalf, but that “[t]he DHO pronounced the judgment and sanctions without reviewing that 8 Though the district court did not analyze this issue directly, the court’s order reveals that it considered and rejected Mr. Jordan’s argument; the court specifically recounted the DHO’s witness-credibility determinations before finding that Mr. Jordan’s procedural due process rights had not been violated. -18- evidence.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 29. The district court rejected this argument and determined that “it [was] apparent [from] the record that the DHO accepted and considered the statement from inmate Scalf . . . . The DHO also considered [Mr. Jordan’s] statement describing his version of the facts.” R., Vol. II, at 145. Having reviewed the DHO’s report, we agree.