McCoy v. Lockhart, 93-1539

Decision Date01 September 1993
Docket NumberNo. 93-1539,93-1539
Citation5 F.3d 532
PartiesNOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action. Geary Eugene MCCOY, Appellant, v. A. L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Larry Fiedorowicz, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees. . Submitted:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Geary McCoy, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action claiming prison officials deprived him of due process and discriminated against him in a disciplinary proceeding. For reversal, he argues that procedural violations require overturning the disciplinary decision. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

McCoy filed a complaint, naming as defendants Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) Director A. L. Lockhart and ADC Disciplinary Hearing Administrator Larry Fiedorowicz. McCoy alleged officials forced him to submit to a random urinalysis and-though he has never smoked marijuana-he tested positive for marijuana according to "unreliable" testing by the ADC and the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory; he was found guilty of a major disciplinary violation on the basis of the test results. He also asserted that he was the victim of unequal treatment, because Fiedorowicz had reversed inmate James Williams's disciplinary based on Williams's word that he did not use marijuana.

A trial was held and, over McCoy's objection, the magistrate judge disallowed McCoy's witnesses-other than inmate Williams-because they offered only cumulative or hearsay testimony. Defendants subsequently filed the affidavit of John Byus, ADC Administrator of Medical and Dental Services, who explained the ADC's testing procedures. He stated that McCoy's specimen tested positive for marijuana under the ADC's "ADX system," and was sent to the state crime laboratory for confirmation testing. Byus further stated that, using a different type of test, the crime laboratory confirmed the presence of marijuana.

The magistrate judge made written findings of fact, and held that the ADC's drug testing method was reliable; that the use of a single officer at the disciplinary hearing did not violate McCoy's rights; and that the different outcomes in McCoy's and Williams's disciplinaries did not amount to discrimination. The magistrate judge then dismissed McCoy's complaint.

McCoy now argues Arkansas Statute 12-12-312 provides that information in the state crime laboratory's possession which relates to a crime is confidential and should be sent to a prosecutor or criminal court; thus, the laboratory could not legally release the confirmation-testing results to the ADC. He contends that the prison officer who submitted McCoy's specimen to the state crime laboratory failed to sign the chain-of-custody form when he obtained the specimen, in violation of administrative policy. McCoy argues that, because Williams's disciplinary was overturned on a procedural violation, his disciplinary should also be overturned based on the chain-of-custody violation; otherwise,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Quintanilla v. Longley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 23 July 2012
    ...at 566, 570-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, and a written explanation for the discipline, id. at 564, 94 S.Ct. 2963"); McCoy v. Lockhart, 5 F.3d 532 (Table), 1993 WL 361869, at *2 (8th Cir. 1993) ("In the prison disciplinary context, due process requires only that the inmate be afforded the procedures s......
  • Aponte v. Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 10-140E
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 22 May 2012
    ...at 566, 570-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, and a written explanation for the discipline, id. at 564, 94 S.Ct. 2963"); McCoy v. Lockhart, 5 F.3d 532 (Table), 1993 WL 361869, at *2 (8th Cir. 1993) ("In the prison disciplinary context, due process requires only that the inmate be afforded the procedures s......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT