Opinion ID: 707800
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disciplinary Proceedings for Bribery

Text: 29 The disciplinary proceedings did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. In prison disciplinary proceedings, an inmate is entitled to: (a) receive advance written notice of the charges against him; (b) appear in person before an impartial hearing body to contest the charges; (c) call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense (subject to the discretion of correctional officials); and (d) receive a written statement of the reasons for the disciplinary action taken. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974); Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1145 (7th Cir.1988). 30 With respect to the first disciplinary incident, 6 there is no question that the plaintiff was given notice of the charges, was allowed to contest the charges (and, in addition, was granted more than one continuance for further investigation and proper drafting of the disciplinary report), requested no witnesses, and received an adjustment committee summary. The plaintiff received all the procedural safeguards mandated by the Constitution. 31 The plaintiff maintains that a non-impartial hearing officer participated in the disciplinary proceedings. According to the plaintiff, a third, still-unidentified, hearing officer, Jane Doe, is a friend of Sanders' and therefore should not have served on the Adjustment Committee. An affidavit from one of the hearing officers attesting as to the reason for Doe's presence in the hearing room would have proved helpful. However, it is sufficient to note that Doe is not listed on the Adjustment Committee summary, which is signed by only two officers (as were the two preceding hearings). The plaintiff apparently is mistaken in his belief that Doe participated in the Committee's decision-making process. Doe's mere presence in the room where the hearing was held does not implicate the Constitution. 32 The plaintiff's charge that the disciplinary action was motivated by racial or retaliatory animus cannot survive summary judgment. The fact that Sanders is white and the plaintiff is black is, by itself, insufficient to support an inference of race discrimination. Davis v. Frapolly, 717 F.Supp. 614, 616 (N.D.Ill.1989), relying on Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir.1982). Likewise, while Fox's alleged racial epithets and racist remark were unprofessional and offensive, Fox played no role in the disciplinary proceedings. A presumably impartial hearing body (formed by one white officer and one black officer) heard the evidence and decided the plaintiff's guilt. 33 The plaintiff was not deprived of due process by receiving re-written disciplinary report from the investigator, rather than the employee who observed the alleged institutional violation. To the contrary, prison regulations implicitly authorize an internal affairs investigator to re-issue conduct reports: 34 If as a result of the investigation it is necessary to amend or modify the original charges, the committed person shall be issued a revised disciplinary report. 35 Ill.Admin. Code, tit. 20, Sec. 504.50(c)(5) (1988). The plaintiff can show no harm from receiving an amended disciplinary report from an investigator rather than the original employee. 36 Furthermore, allegations of false disciplinary reports do not state a claim where due process is afforded. Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140 (7th Cir.1984). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reasoned that the due process safeguards associated with prison disciplinary proceedings are sufficient to guard against potential abuses. A hearing before a presumably impartial Adjustment Committee terminates an officer's possible liability for the filing of an allegedly false disciplinary report. Hawkins v. O'Leary, 729 F.Supp. 600, 602 (N.D.Ill.1990), relying on Hanrahan v. Lane, supra, 747 F.2d at 1141. The procedural requirements of a disciplinary hearing protect prisoners from arbitrary actions of prison officials. McKinney v. Meese, 831 F.2d 728, 733 (7th Cir.1987). 37 The plaintiff's argument that there was an inadequate foundation for the guilt finding also is without merit. It is important to note that this court does not sit in review of the correctness of prison disciplinary decisions. Assuming that due process was met (as the court has found here, see supra ), there is sufficient basis for a reviewing court to approve the disciplinary board's decision if some evidence supports that decision. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d at 1141. In the case at bar, the record is satisfactory. 38 Nurse Sanders issued the following original disciplinary report: 39 On above date and approx. time Inmate Hadley C-76018 approached this writer in med. room. Asked if he could get garbage. Hadley then stated, I have a problem. This guy is lending me some money but he wants to put it in my sister's name. It's a matter of trust. Writer stated, He doesn't trust you? You don't trust him? Hadley stated, No, it's not like that. You see, he's getting the money from his mom. You know how it is. It's an election year, you know. $1,500 is a lot of money. Writer then stated, What does that have to do with me, Hadley? [Hadley responded], You don't get it, do you? It's a bribe. Politicians need money these days. I get out in December & I want to get out of here sooner. There's two guys I need to talk to before this guy who's lending me money goes on a visit and talks to his mom. Could you call these guys over? Writer then told Hadley to never approach writer again with this matter, that I had no intention of helping him. Hadley then left the room. 40 Sanders' accompanying incident report essentially re-stated the above observations and noted that she did not want to jeopardize her job. 41 After several remands and further investigation, the defendant Gabean issued the following, final revised conduct report: 42 On 4/30/92 you were placed under investigative status by the Adjustment Committee and referred to the Internal Affairs Office for investigation for the charge of 103-Bribery/Extortion. As a result of that investigation, with eyewitness staff testimony that you approached a nurse in the medical unit and made reference to bribing a politician. And that you tried to get the nurse to get other inmates to the medical unit to assist you in this manner. This puts you in violation of above-stated rule infraction. 43 The Adjustment Committee's May 21, 1992, summary recorded the following proceedings: 44 IDR was read, viol. of 103 C Bribes and Extortion. Inmate states he's not guilty and feels there is no rule violation. Inmate made no defense, he indicates he needs to make no defense. The I.A. Affairs Report was reviewed by the Comm. Inmate was placed in investigative status on 4-3-92. This IDR was remanded by Comm. for re-write on 5-12-92. The nurse in incident wrote an Incident Report which was reviewed. 45 After considering the available information, the Committee found the plaintiff guilty of the offense charged, rejecting his testimony that Sanders had invented the incident to protect herself in case the plaintiff was attempting to set her up. Their stated reasons for the decision were as follows: 46 Based on the information presented to the Committee which consists of IDR written by Internal Affairs, also review of Internal Affairs report of the incident. The Inmate offered no defense as to this incident. The committee has reviewed the incident report of the employee involved in incident. Serious nature of the charge warrants this discipline. 47 While another body might not have found a violation, the record contains some facts to support the finding that the plaintiff attempted to engage Sanders' assistance in his efforts to bribe a politician. 48 It is irrelevant that one hearing investigator may have believed the charges to be groundless. The plaintiff had no protected interest in the Adjustment Committee adopting Vunetich's reasoning. The issue boiled down to a simple credibility finding. The Adjustment Committee plainly believed Sanders and the investigators rather than the plaintiff, who has a shockingly lengthy record of myriad disciplinary offenses, as evidenced by the defendants' exhibits. The record contains sufficient evidence to substantiate the guilt finding, and the Committee's statement of reasons is satisfactory.