Document: 472 U.S. 445 105 S.Ct. 2768 86 L.Ed.2d 356 SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, WALPOLE, Petitionerv.Gerald HILL and Joseph Crawford. No. 84-438. Argued March 25, 1985. Decided June 17, Syllabus Respondent inmates in a Massachusetts state prison each received disciplinary reports charging them with assaulting another inmate. At separate hearings, board heard testimony from guard his written report. According to this evidence the some commotion walkway and, upon investigating, discovered an inmate who evidently had just been assaulted, saw three other inmates, including respondents, fleeing down walkway. The found respondents guilty revoked their good time credits. After unsuccessful appeal superintendent, filed complaint Superior Court alleging that board's decisions violated constitutional rights because there was no support findings. granted summary judgment for holding findings of guilt rested on constitutionally adequate findings, ordered lost be restored. Supreme Judicial affirmed. Held: 1. Since interpreted statute as providing judicial review respondents' claims, is need decide whether due process would require review. Pp. 449-453. 2. Assuming credits constitute protected liberty interest, revocation such must supported by order satisfy minimum requirements procedural process. Such requirement will help prevent arbitrary deprivation without threatening institutional interests or imposing undue administrative burdens. Ascertaining "some evidence" standard satisfied does not examination entire record, independent assessment witnesses' credibility, weighing evidence, but, instead, relevant question any record conclusion. 453-456. 3. In case, before sufficient meet imposed Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Although might characterized meager, direct identifying one assailant, so devoid were otherwise arbitrary. 456-457. 392 Mass. 198, 466 N.E.2d 818, reversed remanded. Barbara A.H. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., petitioner. Jamie Ann Sabino, Wellesley, respondents. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 comply rules can accumulate reduce term imprisonment. Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 127, § 129 (West 1974). may "if prisoner violates rule place confinement." Ibid. presented inmate's Amendment if decision record. We conclude where revoke evidence. Because case contains board, we reverse. 2 * Respondents Gerald Hill Crawford are at Walpole, May 1982, they hearings inmate, guard, Sergeant Maguire, report, Maguire twice say loudly, "What's going on?" voice came could partially observe through window. immediately opened door named Stephens bleeding mouth suffering swollen eye. Dirt strewn about walkway, viewed further scuffle. He jogging away together There area, which enclosed chain link fence. concluded more assaulted acted group. also testified Hill's hearing "medic" told him beaten. declared innocence gave statements caused injuries. 3 violating regulations based involvement assault. App. 19, 27. recommended Romano lose 100 days confined isolation 15 days. unsuccessfully appealed action superintendent prison. Id., 23, 30. They then Court, State Massachusetts, "there confirm incident took nor did take [respondents] involved." 10. reviewing "the Board's finding rested, finding." Pet. Cert. 8b. voided 4 818 (1984). Inmates rules, court noted, have statutory right loss affects interest 201, 821. observed entitlement "judicial sufficiency warrant findings" logically follows Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 539, 94 2963, 41 935 (1974). N.E.2d, Without deciding appropriate stricter test "substantial evidence," id., 203, n. 5, 822, agreed trial judge failed present even which, believed, rationally permit findings." 822 (footnote omitted). 5 Attorney General petition writ certiorari urging proceedings or, alternatively, applied stringent than required Clause. i, 20-21. petition, 469 1016, 428, 83 355 (1984), now II 6 Petitioner first argues erred proceeding. Ortwein Schwab, 410 656, 93 1172, 35 572 (1973) (per curiam ), petitioner contends, denial filing fee prevented claimants obtaining reducing welfare payments. urges similar conclusion should apply here: afforded all when board. Cf. 659-660, S.Ct., 1174 (pretermination evidentiary met despite lack review). answer noting suggest form threaten property interests. See, e.g., St. Stockyards Co. United States, 298 38, 51-52, 56 720, 725-726, 80 L.Ed. 1033 (1936); Ng Fung Ho White, 259 276, 284-285, 42 492, 495, 66 938 (1922). 7 extent legislatures commit body unreviewable authority make determinations implicating fundamental difficult law. Califano Sanders, 430 99, 109, 97 980, 986, 51 192 (1977); K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 28:3 (2d ed. 1984); Hart, Power Congress Limit Jurisdiction Federal Courts: An Exercise Dialectic, Harv.L.Rev. 1362, 1375-1378, 1388-1391 (1953). per purport resolve definitively; disposed construe implicitly never made proceedings. Crowell Benson, 285 22, 87, 52 285, 306, 76 598 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("under certain circumstances, process"). Whether Constitution requires only issue barred, address unless it necessary resolution See Johnson Robison, 415 361, 366-367, 1160, 1165, 39 389 8 Assuming, arguendo, revoking violate modicum today challenge grounds. correctly observed, 821, has previously held creates speak terms entitlement, careful persuades us available pursuant 249, Supp.1984), provides pertinent part: 9 "A civil nature correct errors according course common law, reviewable motion appeal, brought supreme superior court." 10 notes provision Nonetheless, " '[i]n absence method review, mode correcting law arising out action.' Taunton Eastern Little League Taunton, 719, 1, 452 211, 212, (1983), quoting Reading General, 362 266, 269, 429, 431 (1972). expressly stated framed complaints petitions 'writ habeas corpus ad testificandum,' actions 4. 199, 2, 819, citing its previous Boston Edison Board Selectmen Concord, 79, 242 868 (1968), Appeals Cepulonis Commissioner Correction, Mass.App. 292, 178 (1983). 11 relied town selectmen denying rights-of-way power lines. decided, allowed party claim "that formed basis complained specified matter insufficient action, conclusion." 1959). informed quoted phrase abolished 1973 amendments 4, Mass.Acts, 1114, 289. Tr. Oral Arg. 50-51. Somewhat inexplicably, add substituted 'a certiorari' writ, narrow relief formerly obtainable under statute. Redevelopment Authority, 374 37, 47-49, 371 728, 737-738 (1977). 12 second cited Cepulonis, construed "as seeking certiorari" Mass.App., 178. claim; contended "reliable Department Corrections. 293, 179. Thus, provide avenue adjudicatory nonjudicial challenged those cases, aggrieved parties argued standards 1001 Plays, Inc. Mayor 387 879, 444 931 (1983) (§ license video game arcade); McSweeney Town Manager Lexington, 379 794, 401 113 (1980) (noting varies sought reviewed). 13 Nothing suggests unavailable alleges Constitution. 202-203, 821-822 (failure Procedure Act indicate legislative intent preclude decisions). Indeed, means federal supra, 720-722, 212-213 (Establishment rescission beano license). therefore interpret mechanism claims. Given restraint requiring avoid unnecessary issues, see, Ashwander TWA, 297 288, 346-347, 466, 482-483, 688 (1936) concurring), decline III 14 result amount too strict upheld capricious. Brief 19-21; (1974), protections deprived below Nelson 390 379, 456 1100 (statutory process). Accordingly, proceed assumption involved here, our inquiry procedures. Where credits, receive: (1) advance notice charges; (2) opportunity, consistent safety correctional goals, call witnesses documentary defense; (3) statement factfinder reasons action. U.S., 563-567, 2978-2980. either quantum factfinder's decision, note helps assure administrators, faced possible scrutiny officials public, perhaps courts, human abridged, act fairly." 565, 2979. hold comport process," 558, 2976, 16 flexible depend balancing affected government E.g., Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961). threatens prospective freedom confinement extending length Thus strong assuring arbitrarily. 561, 2977. This however, accommodated distinctive setting prison, "take closed, tightly controlled environment peopled chosen criminal lawfully incarcerated doing so." Consequently, safeguards process, recognized legitimate needs prisoners, avoiding burdensome susceptible manipulation, preserving rehabilitation. Ponte Real, 471 491, 2192, 85 553 (1985); Baxter Palmigiano, 425 308, 321-322, 96 1551, 1559, 47 810 (1976); 562-563, 2977-2978. 17 Requiring deprivations variety contexts, governmental resulting important Douglas Buder, 412 430, 432, 2199, 2200, 37 ) (revocation probation); Schware Bar Examiners, 353 232, 239, 77 752, 756, 796 (1957) (denial admission bar); States ex rel. Vajtauer Immigration, 273 103, 106, 302, 303, 71 560 (1927) (deportation). mandated explain upon, recognizing impose significant new burdens within Nor imply factual respect punishment subject second-guessing 18 supports tribunal deduced. . ." 304. credibility witnesses, Instead, reached ibid.; Tisi Tod, 264 131, 133-134, 44 260, 260-261, 68 590 (1924); Willis Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011, 1018 (CA8 adopt requirement. Prison highly charged atmosphere, administrators often swiftly less exigent circumstances. Wolff, 567-569, 2977-2978, 2980-2981. fairness guaranteed courts set aside fact. Revocation comparable conviction, 556, 2974, neither see Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 99 2781, 61 (1979), greater applies context. IV 19 Turning facts copies That indicated assaulted. No area. inference person struck victim assailant participated 203-204, 822. conclusion, misperceives 20 precludes but context hearing. Constitution, 2; 17. determination lacking reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. 21 It ordered. 22 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, concurring part dissenting part. 23 member favored class litigants. As highest legal officer sovereign State, professional comments accorded special respect.1 Partly reason, partly recent years inclined lend sympathetic ear claims much protection defendants, Attorneys disproportionately successful persuading grant reverse state-court judgments minimal national significance.2 24 treatment give rise duty meticulously forthright accurate advising matters affecting specific questions asks A lawyer's greatest asset—his her reputation squandered achieve favorable individual case. I restate these simple truths my concern indeed, itself, attached importance correction error isolated maintenance govern procedures cases. 25 General's asked two questions: 26 "I. substantive findings? 27 "II. Whether, clause, reviewed arbitrary, capricious, abuse discretion?" i. 28 Having having fully briefed argued, concludes answered. obvious face merited question—whether fact discretion—is standard.3 question, attention procedure 29 following argument: general creation principles enunciated administration." 14. although heart request certiorari, "somewhat inexplicably," ante, 452, he mention Massachusetts' wholly apart "in appeal." Supp.1984). Of course, "decide review," 453, acknowledges settled restraint. 450-453. Court's proper disposition primary presented, adequately how arrived argument docket. 30 existence allowing brief, cite somewhat opaque footnote. 6, footnote, merely confirms presumption aware own State's procedure. Moreover, omitted reference month rejected, defense plaintiffs G.L. c. 4." 381-382, 387-388, 12, 1100, 1102, 1106, (emphasis added). 31 "When Superintendent petitioned heavy burden explaining why intervene what amounts controversy between officials." 502, ----, (1985) (STEVENS, concurring). Even casual student "[t]his discretionary depends numerous factors perceived correctness Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 616-617, 2437, 2447, 341 "do discuss facts." Johnston, 268 220, 227, 45 496, 497, 69 925 (1925).4 unreasonable expect know bring affect sound exercise discretion demonstrate improvidently.5 32 recognizes inexplicably" critical information recognition view prevailed expected frequently admonished litigants obtain reversal ground urged certiorari.6 Instead practice dictated prior undertakes de novo insufficient.7 continue believe task diligent search disclose Hasting, 461 499, 512, 103 1974, judgment). consider particularly unwise volunteer advisory when, remand, remains free reinstate law.8 Once again, places higher value rendition volunteered virtues 33 while join Parts I, opinion, respectfully dissent Part judgment. Marino Ragen, 332 562, 240, 241, 92 170 (1947) ). Florida Rodriguez, 165 (1984) ); California Beheler, 463 1121, 3517, 1275 Illinois Batchelder, 1112, 3513, 1267 Ramos, 992, 3446, 1171 (1983); Andreas, 765, 3319, 1003 declined different Additionally, virtually Courts ruled good-time Adams Gunnell, 729 362, 370 (CA5 Inglese Warden, Penitentiary, 687 363 (CA11 1982); 1018, 1019, 1974); cf. Rusher Arnold, 550 896, 899 (CA3 1977). One Circuit few ago. Aikens Lash, 514 55, 60-61 (CA7 1975) ("The 'substantial evidence' something overly concerned about"), vacated remanded, 947, 1721, 48 191, modified, 547 372 (1976). However, modified version like standard. Brown-Bey 720 467, 1983); Dawson 719 900 Carlson, 707 943, 949 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Yeager Wilkinson, 464 861, 104 189, 78 167 event, minor dispute hardly qualifies importance. 523, 21, (MARSHALL, ("Reserving docket cases truly import go far toward alleviating workload problems allegedly facing Court"). 501-502, ---- concurring) merits oblique relevance administration docket"). License Comm'rs Tiverton Pastore, 238, 685, 618 Rule 34.1(g) (a brief shall contain "a concise containing material consideration presented"); 35.5 (supplemental point "late authorities, newly enacted legislation, intervening matters"). J.I. Case Borak, 377 426, 428-429, 84 1555, 1557-1558, 423 (1964); Carpenters NLRB, 357 93, 96, 1014, 1186 (1958); Irvine California, 347 128, 129-130, 74 381, 98 561 (1954). excuses actually rewards acting High Magistrate," Carney, 386, 396, 2066, 2072, 406 dissenting), reversing "fact-bound significance." Upton, 727, 2085, 721 Commonwealth 394 363, 370-373, 476 548, 550-551 People Cal.3d 136, 150-159, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 807-814, 689 P.2d 437-444 denied, 119, 2367, 266 South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 916, 748 346 N.W.2d 425, 427-429 (SD Washington Chrisman, 455 102 812, 70 778 (1982), Wash. 814, 817-822, 676 419, 422-424 (en banc).

Category: 3