Opinion ID: 214080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Herring Disciplinary Report

Text: On December 14, 2004, prison officials ordered O'Bryant to meet with various prison staff, including Defendant Herring, to discuss O'Bryant's complaints. Herring and O'Bryant disagree as to what happened next. According to Herring, when Herring attempted to counsel O'Bryant about O'Bryant's failure to check in with Herring at the Center Gate upon returning from a call-out, O'Bryant said, The cold has done got to your brain and made you ignorant. I did check in. Herring continued to counsel O'Bryant, but O'Bryant told Herring that you're fucking retarded. The shift officer in charge authorized Herring to write a disciplinary report. Herring subsequently issued a disciplinary report (Herring DR) against O'Bryant for disrespect. O'Bryant was placed in administrative confinement pending resolution of the charge against him. O'Bryant's version of events differs. When O'Bryant arrived at Center Gate, Herring told O'Bryant to eat and then wait on the benches nearby. According to O'Bryant, after the inmates finished eating, Herring called for O'Bryant, told O'Bryant to turn around and cuff up, and told O'Bryant he was going to jail for disrespect. [3] Herring told O'Bryant that O'Bryant had disrespected him, and when O'Bryant asked how he had disrespected Herring, Herring replied I'll think up something. On December 15, 2004, O'Bryant received written notice of the Herring charge. The notice informed O'Bryant that an impartial investigation would be performed and that he would have the following rights during that investigation: (1) he could request staff assistance; (2) he would be informed of the charges against him during the investigation; [4] and (3) he should make any witnesses known to the investigating officer, and those witnesses' testimonies would be presented by written statements. The notice also provided O'Bryant information about his rights during the disciplinary hearing, including, inter alia: (1) the right to request that the hearing be conducted by the disciplinary team rather than the hearing officer; (2) the right to appear in person at the hearing; (3) the right to request staff assistance; (4) the right to make a statement; (5) the right to present evidence and witnesses as deemed appropriate by the disciplinary team or hearing officer; (6) the right to be informed verbally and in writing of the disciplinary panel's decision and the evidence relied upon in coming to the decision; and (7) the right to appeal the decision to the warden. O'Bryant was given an opportunity to write out his version of the incident, which he did. For the Herring DR, a disciplinary panel hearing was held on December 21, 2004, in front of Defendants Peters and Pittman. O'Bryant indicated that he did not make the statements attributed to him in the Herring DR and that, in fact, the entire incident alleged in the Herring DR was fabricated. O'Bryant contended that Herring created the DR in retaliation for O'Bryant's having filed earlier grievances against staff at HCI. After hearing O'Bryant's explanation of the Herring DR, the panel found O'Bryant guilty based on Officer S. Herring's statement and sentenced him to 30 days' disciplinary confinement. [5] O'Bryant appealed the disciplinary action to the warden, claiming that the Herring DR was false and retaliatory; that he had not received credit for time served in confinement; and that the disciplinary hearing team was not impartial. [6] O'Bryant's appeal was unsuccessful.