Adams v. Wainwright, No. BP-179
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 1077,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2216 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BP-179 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2216 Douglas Laveren ADAMS, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Appellee. |
Page 1077
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Appellee.
First District.
Page 1078
Douglas LaVerne Adams, in pro. per.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Rivers Buford, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice appellant's petition for habeas corpus. Because we believe appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims, we reverse.
Appellant is a prisoner incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections. On four separate occasions he was cited for various rule infractions and, after hearings before prison disciplinary teams, suffered gain time losses totalling 120 days. Appellant exhausted his administrative remedies and filed a petition for habeas corpus in circuit court. The trial judge correctly perceived appellant's petition to be one for habeas corpus or mandamus, and we will also consider it as such.
The trial court was correct in dismissing appellant's claim that a disciplinary hearing was not held in a timely fashion. The record reveals that it was. Similarly, the judge correctly dismissed the claim that appellant was not allowed to call witnesses at the first hearing, as appellant did not allege that he tried to call any witnesses. The trial court also properly dismissed the allegation that the teams' factual findings of guilt were insufficiently specific to meet the standard set out in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Under Brown v. Frey, 807 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir.1986), the findings were clearly enough to satisfy federal constitutional standards.
However, it was error to deny appellant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he was not allowed to call witnesses at the second, third, and fourth hearings, and that a "blanket ban" on witnesses existed generally. Under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), and Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 105 S.Ct. 2192, 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985), inmates have a limited constitutional right to call witnesses in disciplinary hearings where they are threatened with loss of gain time. Appellant properly documented his claim with affidavits setting out specific facts, which, if true, would constitute violations of Wolff and Ponte. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould, 1D19-1149
...allegedly conducted in violation of constitutional requirements or the rules of the Department of Corrections"); Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (explaining that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to enforce a prison official's "duty under the United States Con......
-
Jones v. Kirkland, No. 96-1381
...a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security of the institution." See also Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Thus, the question before the trial court was whether a reasonable official could have believed the denial of appellan......
-
Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, No. 92-288
...Comm'n, 450 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), or dismiss those claims that are factually insufficient, see, e.g., Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA1987). However, if the petition is facially sufficient, the court must issue an alternative writ, i.e., an order directed to the re......
-
S.J. v. Thomas, CASE NO. 1D16–3635
...Comm'n, 450 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), or dismiss those claims that are factually insufficient, see, e.g., Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, if the petition is facially sufficient, the court must issue an alternative writ, i.e., an order directed to the r......
-
Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould, 1D19-1149
...allegedly conducted in violation of constitutional requirements or the rules of the Department of Corrections"); Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (explaining that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to enforce a prison official's "duty under the United States Con......
-
Jones v. Kirkland, No. 96-1381
...a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security of the institution." See also Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Thus, the question before the trial court was whether a reasonable official could have believed the denial of appellan......
-
Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, No. 92-288
...Comm'n, 450 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), or dismiss those claims that are factually insufficient, see, e.g., Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA1987). However, if the petition is facially sufficient, the court must issue an alternative writ, i.e., an order directed to the re......
-
S.J. v. Thomas, CASE NO. 1D16–3635
...Comm'n, 450 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), or dismiss those claims that are factually insufficient, see, e.g., Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, if the petition is facially sufficient, the court must issue an alternative writ, i.e., an order directed to the r......