Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 2-62634
| Decision Date | 14 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-62634,2-62634 |
| Citation | 285 N.W.2d 751 |
| Parties | John Clair FICHTNER, Appellant, v. IOWA STATE PENITENTIARY, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
C. J. Krogmeier of Deitchler, Thomas, Saunders, Krogmeier & Humphrey, Fort Madison, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Stephen C. Robinson and Gary L. Hayward, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Considered en banc.
In this appeal involving prison disciplinary proceedings we consider the due process principles enunciated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). See also Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976); Kelly v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1975). Since fundamental constitutional rights are involved, we review the case de novo in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Cullison, 227 N.W.2d 121, 126 (Iowa 1975).
Petitioner John Clair Fichtner was incarcerated at the Iowa Men's Reformatory and was ordered to be transferred with five other residents to the Iowa State Penitentiary. While leaving the reformatory in a van and also while en route to the penitentiary, with two reformatory officers, some of the six residents allegedly caused considerable commotion. At the penitentiary, Officer Rubel, one of the two accompanying officers, placed three of the residents including petitioner on report for misconduct in violation of reformatory rules. Apparently Rubel lodged this report with penitentiary officials. The report states:
Violation of Rule # : 1, 2, 4, 7, 28, 32
On July 13, 1978, while leaving the Institution for transfer to ISP these residents were verbally disrespectful to CSII Shafer & Voc. Inst. Dick Teble. They said on the way out that "Shafer sucks KKKK and that Mr. Teble was a KKKK. During the trip down to Fort Madison Resident Spurlin continually saying "Rubel you are a KKKKKK and that your wife is a whore. Resident Fichtner said that I'd better watch it because he would be getting out one day and that he could get even. While driving through the various cities we go through to get to ISP these three residents continually were yelling and saying abusive things to women who were walking on the city streets. During the trip these three residents did some damage to the State vehicle. Resident Spurlin threw out two ashtrays and one rubber strap, while Resident Matthews was trying to tear the vinyl interior with a hook from the straps. Resident Fichtner threw out the other rubber strap. Throughout the larger portion of this trip, these residents were kicking at the windows and sides of the van and when told to stop refused. Resident Spurlin and Fichtner lead a cheer with Matthews that kept on saying that "Rubel means KKKKKK." They also kept on referring to my wife as a KKKKKK whore and that they were KKKKKK her out on the streets. Throughout this trip (last line of report not photocopied in record).
At the penitentiary an officer of that institution delivered to petitioner a notice of the report with a copy of the report attached.
The penitentiary has about 400 disciplinary cases per month to process and has only one investigating officer, Reuben Baker. Baker interviewed petitioner and prepared this statement of the interview:
Fichtner states the reports are all wrong. States that he never heard any disrespectful remarks called out to or about anyone as they were leaving. States there were not any ashtrays in the seat he was sitting in. States that it was impossible for Spurlin to have thrown anything out any window because of the manner he was chained and the position in which he was sitting. Fichtner says he could not get to a window to throw anything out because he was sitting in the middle of the front seat and was chained and shackled. States that it is a lie and he never made any statement to the officer about getting out and getting even. States he had no reason to. States that the only time anyone got loud was when the officer hit a bump going about 55 miles per hour. States he almost hit a pickup truck after running a stop sign. States he don't ever recall the officer ever turning around and looking back. No remarks made about people on the streets were never loud enough for anyone to hear them.
Petitioner requested Baker to have the two officers and the other five residents (two of whom petitioner knew by name) testify at the hearing on the report. The decision as to the particular witnesses to be called, however, appears to be within the province of the committee which hears the case. Baker did interview Officer Rubel who placed the residents on report, and also the two residents petitioner specified by name. Baker's statement regarding the Rubel interview follows:
Officer Rubel states that the inmate was not provoked by his driving. States that the inmates yelled remarks at people along the way and was verbally disrespectful as stated in the report.
One of the two residents was David L. Overcash. We quote Baker's statement of this interview;
Overcash states that he was one of the first persons in the van, and that there was not any ash trays in it. He states that everyone got upset because of the way the driver was driving. At one time he ran a stop sign and was almost hit by a truck full of people. Later hit bump doing about 50 miles an hour. States that there was no loud yelling at people along the way.
The other resident interviewed was Jack E. Whitney. We set forth the statement of the interview:
Whitney states that he never saw any ash trays being thrown out of the van. He states that what commotion there was was caused by the way the driver was driving. He states that at one point the driver ran a stop sign and was almost hit by a pickup truck and later ignored a drive slow sign and hit bump driving around 50 miles an hour. States that Matthews never said anything during the trip except when the driver hit the bump.
The report came on for hearing before a two-person committee of penitentiary officials. At the hearing petitioner received copies of the statements of Baker's interviews. The committee members were not aware at that time of the contents of the reformatory rules alleged to have been violated. They nevertheless proceeded with a hearing on the allegations of fact in the report. No one appeared before the committee besides petitioner. The committee had before it Rubel's report and Baker's statements of interviews. At some point, not in petitioner's presence, the committee talked with Rubel by telephone, who confirmed the contents of his report. At least one committee member heard statements of other residents involved in the alleged incident, probably in connection with their hearings, but those residents apparently did not implicate petitioner.
Numerous hearings must perforce be held and this hearing was very brief. The committee members asked petitioner but few questions; they had before them the statement of his interview and the other interview statements. Petitioner's prior request for appearance of witnesses was not complied with; whether Baker informed the committee of it is not known. Petitioner asked for a polygraph test, but no action was taken in that respect. He also asked what the reformatory rules in question stated, but the committee was unable to tell him.
Petitioner was excused and then was recalled in a few minutes and told the committee found him guilty. The written account of the hearing, prepared at its conclusion, states:
IOWA STATE PENITENTIARY
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY HEARING
A. Committe Membership Kirby & Esehmann
Inmate Name: Fichtner, John Number 330066
B. Incident Number: Rule Violations Date of
Major 78-7-266 1,2,4,7,28,32 Report
(Anamosa) 7-14-78
C. Reasons for Decision: Fichtner stated the report
is not true and that he did not say anything to
the officer. He stated the only time he said anything
was when they were approaching a bridge
He denies threatening the officer
Found guilty based on the officer's report
D. Decision: Guilty Good Time 2 days
Solitary 5 days
Disposition: 5 days Solitary and 30 days administrative
segregation in CH #20
E. Appeal: Inmate did wish to appeal the disposition
Later the same day the committee telephoned the reformatory about the rules on which the report was based, and then caused the following paper to be delivered to the three residents involved:
This is to advise that we called the Reformatory at Anamosa, Iowa this date and they gave us the following information with reference to rules violated 1-2-4-7-28-32
(1) Disobeying a direct order
(2) Being disrespectful
(4) Swearing and improper language
(7) Disfigure or damage property
(28) Violation of safety rules and procedures
(32) Being a party to any activity contrary to institution regulations.
In disciplinary committee on 7-26-78 you were foung (Sic ) guilty of the following Anamosa rules violated:
Sprulin (Sic ) # 204112 rules violated 2-4-7-28-32
Fichtner # 330066 rules violated 2-4-7-28-32
Mathews (Sic ) # 203953 rules violated 7-28-32
A disciplinary decision such as the committee made automatically brings about a loss of good time and honor time in accordance with a schedule in the prison rules. See also § 246.39, The Code 1979.
Petitioner appealed unsuccessfully through administrative channels. He then sought and obtained a writ of habeas corpus from district court. After trial, the court annulled the writ. Petitioner appealed to this court.
Petitioner challenges the disciplinary decision on several due process grounds and on one other ground. He claims the decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson, In re
...in camera interview of the informants themselves. (See also Wilson v. Farrier (Iowa 1985) 372 N.W.2d 499, 502; Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary (Iowa 1979) 285 N.W.2d 751, 759.) In Casper v. Marquette Prison Warden (1983) 126 Mich.App. 271, 337 N.W.2d 56, the court held minimum due proce......
-
Losee v. State
...an evidentiary hearing. Because fundamental constitutional rights are involved, our review is de novo. Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751, 752 (Iowa 1979); State v. Cullison, 227 N.W.2d 121, 126 (Iowa I. Sufficiency of the Evidence. Petitioner contends that the disciplinary......
-
James v. State, s. 90-1130
...Mahers v. State, 437 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Iowa 1989); Wilson v. Farrier, 372 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Iowa 1985); see also Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 1979). We have held that confidential information statements may provide sufficient evidence for prison disciplinary actio......
-
Giles v. State, 92-1901
...to provide the inmate with some form of counsel substitute. Id. at 570, 94 S.Ct. at 2982, 41 L.Ed.2d at 959; Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751, 758-59 (1979). The Iowa State Penitentiary has codified Wolff 's requirements in its rules, The inmates have no rights to retaine......