Opinion ID: 1894755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Untimely Processing of the Charge.

Text: We next consider plaintiff's claim that his hearing was not processed within the time limits prescribed by prison rules. In this regard, he relies on rule III(D(1): The Security Director or designated official will schedule the disciplinary hearing for a time after the twenty-four (24) hour notice period, unless the accused inmate waives in writing the notice period. The hearing shall be held within four working days of the discovery of the alleged rule violation and the accused inmate's responsibility for the violation unless a. The inmate requests a continuance for further investigation or other cause; b. The disciplinary authority continues the hearing for further investigation or other good cause; c. Summary action, such as placement in administrative segregation, has been taken against the inmate in connection with the alleged incident ...; d. The inmate is not available for a hearing; or e. The matter has been referred to the County Attorney or other prosecuting authorities for investigation and possible prosecution as a criminal offense. Rule V(C)(9) provides: When summary action has been taken, the hearing must be held within two (2) working days of the summary action, unless (a) the inmate requests an extension; (b) the disciplinary authority continues the hearing not to exceed 2 working days, for further investigation or other good cause; or (c) the incident causing the summary action has been referred to the County Attorney or other prosecuting authorities for investigation of possible criminal prosecution. The record reflects that on July 11, 1985, applicant received a summary segregation notice which informed him that he was confined to his cell because of an investigation that was in progress. On July 15, 1985, he received notice of a decision to continue his segregation pending further investigation. On July 18, 1985, he again received a summary segregation notice. The latter notice informed him that he was being placed in segregation because he might be a threat to the security and tranquility and good order of the institution. Applicant's hearing was held on July 25, 1985. We find the record sustains the State's conclusion that applicant's hearing did not need to be held within four days of discovery of the alleged rule violation because further investigation was required. This circumstance, we believe, constitutes good cause for delay under rule III(D)(1)(a). Summary action was not taken until July 18, the date applicant received the disciplinary report. Prior to this time, his confinement in his cell was nonpunitive for reasons of security and thus not subject to the rules upon which he relies. See Lyon v. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir.1984). There was no violation of the time requirements for processing the charges.