11. Discipline.

U.S. D/strict Court DRUG TESTING

Alexander v. Gilmore, 202 F.Supp.2d 478 (E.D.Va. 2002). Two prisoners, one a current prisoner and one a former prisoner, sued a prison and officials. The district court found that a prisoner's placement in segregated housing following an institutional conviction for being under the influence of drugs, even though a confirmatory urine test was not conducted, was not sufficiently severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim. The court also held that the prisoners did not state a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) by alleging that the prison had obtained federal funding for drug testing by falsely certifying that the requirements for testing and disposal of samples were being followed. According to the court, the prison, and employees who were acting in their official capacities, were exempt from the FCA and there was no showing that the employees were acting in their individual capacities. (Virginia Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court VISITS

Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 286 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2002). [Reversed by U.S. Supreme Court on June 16, 2003, in a unanimous decision.] A class of state prisoners and their prospective visitors brought a [section] 1983 action against a state corrections department, alleging that restrictions on prison visitation violated their First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that prisoners have no freedom of association rights to contact visits, but that a close analysis of prison regulations is especially appropriate when the challenged restrictions interfere with family relationships, including the parent-child bond. The court held that a prison regulation that prohibited non-contact visits from inmates' minor siblings, nieces, and nephews, violated the First Amendment. The court also found a violation in the regulation that prohibited non-contact visits from an inmate's natural child if the parental rights of the inmate to the child had been terminated. Similar violations were found by the court for regulations that banned visits from a former prisoner, probationer or a parolee (other than a prisoner's immediate family), required children to be accompanied by an immediate family member or legal guardian, and a permanent ban on all visitation (other than attorney or clergy) for prisoners with two or more major misconduct charges for substance abuse. (Michigan Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court PRETRIAL DETAINEES

Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a civil right action alleging due process violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed the complaint and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The district court held that issues of fact existed as to the reason for the detainee's segregation, and that the detainee's retaliation allegations sufficiently stated a claim. The appeals court was unable to determine from the record whether the detainee was placed in lockdown segregation for preventive purposes or for punishment. (Indiana)

U.S. District Court DUE PROCESS WITNESS EVIDENCE

Hoskins v. McBride, 202 F.Supp.2d 839 (N.D.Ind. 2002). A state prisoner filed for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging revocation of earned good time credits and demotion in his credit time earning class, following a disciplinary proceeding. The district court denied the petition, finding that prison officials did not deny the prisoner due process by failing to compel witnesses to name a "certain offender" named in a tip regarding drug trafficking, nor by denying him permission to view security videos and other physical evidence. The court noted that while prisoners have the right to call witnesses to testify on their behalf at disciplinary hearings when it is consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, but that this is not an unlimited right. (Indiana State Prison in Michigan City)

U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS EVIDENCE

Martinez v. Hedrick, 36 Fed.Appx. 209 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner filed for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a disciplinary board's reprimand for entering into an unauthorized contract. The district court denied the petition and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmate was not denied due process. The alleged contract was a subscription to Men magazine, unauthorized because the subscription was not prepaid. The court noted that it has not yet addressed whether 2254 or the Due Process Clause are implicated when an inmate alleges only that a prison decision caused his retention in, rather than demotion to, a particular credit-earning class. (Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court EVIDENCE DUE PROCESS

Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner who had been found guilty by prison authorities of attempted trafficking, and who lost 180 days of good time credit as a result, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that evidence in the prison disciplinary proceeding was sufficient to support the guilty finding. (Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS

Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2002). A former state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging that his due process rights were violated when he was sanctioned for violating prison rules. The district court granted summary judgment for the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The prisoner had been transferred to "less amenable and more restrictive quarters" and placed in disciplinary detention for 15 days and administrative segregation for 120 days, after he was found to have attempted to plan an escape. (Bayside State prison, New Jersey