Document: 420 U.S. 734 95 S.Ct. 1237 43 L.Ed.2d 587 James D. COX, former Assistant Director for Treatment, Virginia Division of Corrections, et al.v.James R. COOK. No. 74—751. March 24, 1975. Rehearing Denied April 28, See 421 955, 1689. PER CURIAM. 1 This petition by officials the prison system a writ certiorari arises out suit brought against them an inmate State Penitentiary in which he alleged that on three occasions, between October 1968 and 1970, was placed solitary confinement misconduct without being given notice charged or opportunity to meet charge at hearing,1 violation procedural requirements Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment; requested monetary damages expunction all records discipline. 2 A jury partial trial2 found respondent had fact been hearing. It also suffered mental but no physical damage. However, it made finding with respect responsibility any petitioners his confinement. After offering additional adduce further proof this issue before second jury, trial judge ruled could recover nothing as insufficient establish knowledge were responsible respondent's 3 Respondent appealed and, briefs oral argument, United States Court Appeals Fourth Circuit, holding below would support ultimately confinement, reversed remanded proceedings. 4 On rehearing contended constitutional rule requiring some kind hearing connection serious discipline determinations created Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 539, 94 2963, 41 935, 1974, expressly inapplicable disciplinary action taken date decision. Id., 573—574, 2983—2984. Thus even if proved not, matter law, obtain relief. The denied petition, saying that, district incarcerated, federal decision predating supra, namely Landman Royster, 333 F. Supp. 621 (E.D.Va.1971), required determinations. Petitioners contend here itself decided after involved case thus supplies more basis liability than does McDonnell. We agree. 5 In we held state prisoner entitled under Amendment involving misconduct. rejected 6 'the due process proceedings apply retroactively so require containing misconduct, not accord procedures, be expunged,' U.S., 573, S.Ct., 2983; 7 our retroactive. context request same result obtains, fortiori, claims acting good-faith reliance pre-existing procedure. Pierson Ray, 386 547, 87 1213, 18 288 (1967). is true District Eastern anticipated part supra. Even might bear retroactivity occurred Therefore, neither announced nor one supports damage here.3 Accordingly, granted judgment Circuit reversed. 8 Reversed. 9 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took consideration case. based claim unidentified guard inflicted beating respondent. has sustained Court's none responsibile beating, filed cross-petition certiorari. uncertain whether trial. Counsel court agreed jury's findings certain issues form special verdict, postpone warranted. do regard dicta Peyton, 370 F.2d 135 (CA4 1966), did predate here, laying down binding prior later F.Supp. (EDVa.1971). These mentioned relied

Category: 0