Court Opinion

ID: 2964151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:21.748512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.463475
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2299

                                    DENNIS EVANS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            David J. Gentile on Motion for Summary Judgment for appellee.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have  reviewed carefully the  record in
                 __________

            this  case,  including  the  transcript of  appellant  Dennis

            Evans' disciplinary  hearing.  We summarily  affirm the grant

            of summary judgment to appellees.  

                 Even if  we assume  without  deciding that  Evans has  a

            constitutionally  protected  liberty  interest  in  good time

            credits, he  has still failed  to allege sufficient  facts to

            support a claim that  his rights to federal due  process were

            violated.  

                 First, under federal due process standards, an inmate is

            entitled  to notice of the charges against him, not to notice

            of each  item of evidence which  may be offered to  prove the

            charges.   Consequently, providing an  inmate with a  copy of

            the disciplinary report satisfies due process. See Langton v.
                                                           ___ _______

            Berman, 667  F.2d 231,  234 (1st  Cir. 1981).     Since Evans
            ______

            admits  that he  received timely  copies of  the disciplinary

            report  against him  prior to  the disciplinary  hearing, his

            claim is without merit.1  
                                   1

                 Second, Evans  alleges that  he was  denied  a right  to

            present witnesses in  his own defense.   However, the  record

            indicates   that  Evans   made  only   a  reference   at  his

            disciplinary hearing to a desire  to call prison officials as

            witnesses  and that  this claim was  not pressed.   Moreover,

                                
            ____________________

               1Evans' allegation  that  the notice  violated the  Morris
               1
            rules is not of federal constitutional dimension, and  such a
            violation,  in and of  itself, is not  a sufficient predicate
            for a federal due process claim.  

                                         -2-

            even if we assume that the board erred in  not allowing Evans

            to call these witnesses, the error was harmless.  

                 The   only  information   those  witnesses   could  have

            provided, according to Evans, is that they had not seen Evans

            have  more   than  minimal  contact  with   his  alleged  co-

            conspirator in  the time immediately preceding  the discovery

            of the escape attempt.  Since Evans makes no claim that these

            witnesses   were   present   at   all  times   during   which

            communication between Evans and his co-conspirator could have

            occurred, their  testimony would have done  little to sustain

            Evans' claim.  Since Evans has not shown that he suffered any

            prejudice from his inability to  call these witnesses, he has

            failed to  show any violation of his due process rights.  See
                                                                      ___

            Forbes v. Trigg, 976  F.2d 308, 318 (7th Cir.  1992) (failure
            ______    _____

            to allow inmate to call witnesses did not violate due process

            since "[t]heir testimony could  have added little"); see also
                                                                 ___ ____

            Wolff v.  McDonnell, 418  U.S. 539, 566  (1974) (disciplinary
            _____     _________

            board   may  deny   request   for  witness   on  grounds   of

            irrelevance).

                 Evans'  third  claim  is  that  there  was  insufficient

            evidence  in the record to support the finding of guilt.  The

            only   witness  upon   which   the  board   relied  was   the

            investigating officer, who related to the board the testimony

            of  two   confidential  informants  and   vouched  for  their

            reliability. 

                                         -3-

                 When  a  disciplinary board's  finding  of  guilt relies

            primarily   on  the  evidence   provided  by  a  confidential

            informant, due process requires  that the board have adequate

            information from which it  could reasonably conclude that the

            informant's evidence was reliable.   See Langton, 667 F.2d at
                                                 ___ _______

            235.    We find  that the  board had  a sufficient  basis for

            finding that  the informants'  testimony met  the reliability

            requirement in this case.

                 In his testimony to the board, the investigating officer

            made clear that his information about the escape attempt came

            from  two separate  informants  and that  each informant  had

            provided reliable information in the past.  He also testified

            that  physical  evidence (escape  tools)  were  found in  the

            possession  of  one of  the  informants.   An  investigator's

            personal testimony of  what a confidential informant  stated,

            along  with  his  statement  that the  informant  had  proved

            reliable in  the  past, is  usually  sufficient to  meet  the

            reliability requirement of Wolff.  See Hensley v. Wilson, 850
                                       _____   ___ _______    ______

            F.2d  269, 277  (6th Cir.  1988) ("[a]t  a very  minimum, the

            investigator  must report  that  a  particular informant  has

            proved reliable  in specific  past instances");  Zimmerlee v.
                                                             _________

            Keeney,  831 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487
            ______                                      _____ ______

            U.S. 1207  (1988)  ("that an  informant  previously  supplied

            reliable information  is sufficient"); Dawson  v. Smith,  719
                                                   ______     _____

            F.2d 896, 899  (7th Cir.  1983), cert. denied,  466 U.S.  929
                                             _____ ______

                                         -4-

            (1984) (same); Kyle  v. Hanberry, 677  F.2d 1386, 1390  (11th
                           ____     ________

            Cir. 1982) ("due  process may be satisfied where  the witness

            relaying the information provided by a confidential informant

            testifies before the [board] that he knows the informer, that

            he has  used him in the past, and that the informer had first

            hand knowledge of the  incident reported").  We find  that it

            is so in the instant case, especially since physical evidence

            was found which corroborated this information. 

                 The   judgment  of  the   district  court  is  summarily

            affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.  
            ________   ___

                 Appellant's  motion to  be allowed  to proceed  in forma
                                                                 __ _____

            pauperis and  his motion for  appointment of an  attorney are
            ________

            denied.
            ______

                                         -5-