Opinion ID: 556616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does Other Evidence in the Record Support the 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 Dismissal?

Text: 26 Even if Young's due process rights were violated at the hearing, the other evidence of threats made to his cellmate during the incident may support the district court's dismissal of the complaint as legally frivolous. We note in this regard that the district court's scope of review of the disciplinary hearing officer's decision was limited to the narrow some evidence standard. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (disciplinary board decision in state correctional institution must be supported by some evidence). 27 Young admitted to banging the cell door with a milk crate but denied threatening to hit the guard or his cellmate with the crate or in any other way threatening his cellmate during the incident. Young essentially did admit, however, that he refused to accept a program assignment, by attempting to prevent the guard from allowing his cellmate to reenter the cell. The district court's dismissal of Young's complaint was therefore justified as to this charge. However, with respect to the charge of threatening his cellmate, the conflicting accounts of Young's behavior do not justify the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), particularly in light of Kann's refusal to produce the allegedly threatening letter. 28 In Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 907, 102 S.Ct. 415, 70 L.Ed.2d 225 (1981), the court held that a prisoner was denied the minimum due process requirements mandated by Wolff where the prison disciplinary committee denied him access to an investigatory report containing exculpatory witness statements. Id. at 1286-87. Even though the disciplinary committee considered this report when reaching its conclusions, the court found that the prisoner was deprived of his ability to make his own use of this exculpatory evidence before it was given to the fact-finders. Id. at 1286. If [the prisoner] had been given the material, and argued it to the Committee, it may have been forced to consider the material more seriously. Id. We agree with this approach. 13 29 Not only does Young claim that he was improperly denied access to the letter in order to demonstrate that it did not contain threatening remarks, but he also asserts that his ability to prepare a defense was abridged by Kann's decision that prevented him from hearing or responding to the guard's testimony regarding the content of the letter. If his allegations are true, Young was denied the opportunity to hear whatever else the guard may have testified to concerning his alleged physical threats toward his cellmate. Had Young been able to boost his credibility by impeaching the guard's testimony concerning the letter's content and responding intelligently to any testimony concerning the confrontation at the cell door, Kann may have consider[ed] ... more seriously, Chavis, 643 F.2d at 1286, Young's contention that the banging of the milk crate against the door was neither intended, nor should have been perceived, as a threat of bodily harm toward his cellmate. As the court noted in Daigle v. Hall, 387 F.Supp. 652, 660 (D.Mass.1975), if the testimony against the inmate is not to be presented directly by witnesses, it nevertheless must be revealed to the inmate with sufficient detail to permit the inmate to rebut it intelligently. Thus, we think that the denial of Young's due process rights was potentially outcome determinative, at least regarding the degree of severity of the sanctions imposed. 14 30 Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Young's due process claims are not based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory or on completely baseless factual contentions. Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing as legally frivolous the portions of Young's complaint relating to the non-production of the letter. 31 While perhaps not rising to the level of constitutional deprivations under Wolff, Kann also may have violated an opaque regulatory mandate, further emphasizing the unfairness of the process accorded Young at his first hearing. If Young's allegations are true, Kann violated the procedures prescribed by 28 C.F.R. Sec. 541.17(d) (1990), which provides that [a]n inmate has the right to be present throughout the DHO [Disciplinary Hearing Officer] hearing except during a period of deliberation or when institutional security would be jeopardized. The DHO must document in the record the reason(s) for excluding an inmate from the hearing. Kann proffered no security reasons for refusing to allow Young to be present while the guard was being questioned, nor does it appear that any such reasons exist. 32 Although he does not have an absolute right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at a prison disciplinary hearing, see Wolff, 418 U.S. at 567-69, 94 S.Ct. at 2980-81; Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 321-22, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1559-60, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), Young could argue that 28 C.F.R. Sec. 541.17(d) at least establishes a right to be present during the testimony of an adverse witness. In Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287, 1296-99 (6th Cir.1980), the court held that the extensive procedural protections contained in state prison regulations, including the right of a prisoner to cross-examine witnesses through a resident advisor and to remain in the hearing room until all witnesses and evidence have been heard, cannot serve as the basis for a civil rights claim in and of themselves where they are beyond the scope of those procedural requirements prescribed by Wolff. However, because the procedures codified at 28 C.F.R. Secs. 541.10-541.20 largely track the due process requirements established in Wolff, Young may have a persuasive argument that 28 C.F.R. Sec. 541.17(d) does establish a due process right cognizable for purposes of a Bivens action, see supra n. 7. Regardless of the constitutionality of the right to be present during the testimony of an adverse witness at a hearing, we agree with the court in McIntosh that clearly the better practice would be to allow confrontation if it would not interfere with the functioning of the prison. 578 F.Supp. at 98. 15 III. THE SECOND DISCIPLINARY HEARING 33 At his second disciplinary hearing, Young was charged with disruptive conduct for intentionally clogging the toilet in his cell, causing it to overflow onto the cellblock range. After essentially admitting that he intentionally caused the toilet to overflow, Young was found guilty of disruptive behavior and received a sanction of 15 days in disciplinary segregation and forfeiture of 8 days of statutory good time. 34 Young claims that his due process rights were violated at this second hearing because he was forced to proceed without being presented with a copy of the investigator's report. Young had no right to receive a copy of the investigation report, however, because he waived his right to have a staff representative present. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 541.14(b)(2); Mendoza v. Miller, 779 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir.1985); see also infra n. 16. Furthermore, Young submitted a written statement of his account of the incident in which he does not deny (indeed, he basically admits) engaging in the disruptive behavior for which he was charged, presenting justifications for his actions and explaining that he was in an ebullient state. At the hearing, Young did not deny the charges and would only state that he did what [he] had to do. Thus, Young's due process claims stemming from his second disciplinary hearing lack an arguable factual or legal basis. Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing this part of his complaint as legally frivolous. 16