Goff v. Dailey

• Decision Date: 15 June 1993
• Docket Number: Nos. 92-1951,92-2019,s. 92-1951
• Citation: 991 F.2d 1437
• Parties: George GOFF, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Steve DAILEY, Superintendent of Clarinda; Richard Huckins, Correctional Officer, Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1437

991 F.2d 1437

George GOFF, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Steve DAILEY, Superintendent of Clarinda; Richard Huckins Correctional Officer, Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 92-1951, 92-2019.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 18, 1992.

Decided April 29, 1993.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied June 15, 1993.

Layne M. Lindebak, Des Moines, IA, argued (Bonnie J. Campbell and Layne M. Lindebak, on the brief) for appellant/cross-appellee.

Philip B. Mears, Iowa City, Iowa, argued, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

George Goff, an Iowa prisoner, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Superintendent Steve Dailey and Correctional Officer Richard Huckins, both Iowa prison officials, violated his constitutional rights through the prison disciplinary process. Dailey and Huckins appeal the district court's finding that the prison disciplinary committee denied Goff due process of law by using an evidentiary standard below a preponderance of the evidence for its factual determinations. ¹ Goff cross appeals the district court's denial of relief on his access to the courts and First Amendment claims. We reverse the district court's determination that use of the "some evidence" standard at the prison disciplinary hearing violated Goff's right to due process, and affirm the district court's decision that the prison officials did not deny Goff access to the courts or violate his First Amendment rights.

I. BACKGROUND

On the evening of August 3, 1987, Goff and other inmates were watching television in the recreation room at the Clarinda Correctional Facility in Clarinda, Iowa. One of the inmates asked Huckins if he would allow the group to watch television longer than the usual viewing hours that evening. When Huckins denied this request, Goff remarked to another inmate that Huckins "must not have gotten any pussy before work." Huckins heard the comment and asked Goff to repeat it, which Goff did. Huckins then told Goff that he was on report for making the statement.

Goff argued with Huckins, contending that under the First Amendment he could say anything he liked to another inmate, as long as his comment was not directed at a correctional officer. Huckins refused to capitulate to this reasoning, however, and stood by his decision to file a report charging Goff with a violation of the prison regulation that proscribes verbal abuse. Goff indicated that if Huckins filed the report, he would take Huckins to court. Goff then requested a grievance form, which he took back to his cell. A short time later, Goff returned to the recreation room and told Huckins that he was the wrong person to be "fucking with." Goff continued, saying if "[y]ou don't think I'm the wrong person to be fucking with, I'll go back to Fort Madison right now." ²

Huckins filed a disciplinary report detailing Goff's statements and charging that Goff violated three prison rules that proscribe (1) verbal abuse; (2) threats or intimidation; and (3) obstructive or disruptive conduct. After a hearing, the disciplinary committee found Goff guilty of violating all three rules. ³ Dailey affirmed the disciplinary committee's decision on appeal. Goff then brought this action in federal court.

II. DISCUSSION

A. First Amendment

Goff argues that his First Amendment rights were violated because he was punished for comments made to another prisoner about Huckins. Goff does not deny making the statement, but he denies directing the remark to Huckins. According to Goff, the First Amendment shields him from punishment under the prison's verbal abuse rule unless he intended that Huckins overhear the remark. Since the disciplinary committee made no findings about whether Goff wanted Huckins to hear his statement, Goff contends that his punishment was unconstitutional.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the First Amendment protects speech like that at issue here, although we doubt such proposition, the prison officials still did not violate Goff's rights under the Constitution. "[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). This relaxed standard of scrutiny is necessary if " 'prison administrators ..., and not the courts, [are] to make the difficult judgments concerning institutional operations.' " Id. (quoting Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119, 128, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2539, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977)). Huckins testified that he asked Goff to repeat his statement in order to give Goff a chance to retract it. Goff, however, elected to repeat the statement in a confrontational fashion. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the prison has a legitimate penological interest in punishing inmates for mocking and challenging correctional officers by making crude personal statements about them in a recreation room full of other inmates. Accordingly, Goff was not deprived of his First Amendment rights when the disciplinary committee found that he violated the rule against verbal abuse.

B. Access to the Courts

Goff next contends that the prison abridged his right of access to the courts because he was punished for threatening to sue Huckins if Huckins filed a disciplinary report. It is clear that prison officials cannot punish an inmate for filing legal actions. Sanders v. St. Louis County, 724 F.2d 665, 666 (8th Cir.1983). The disciplinary committee found that Goff violated the rule against threats or intimidation "by threatening [Correctional Officer] Huckins with court action." On appeal, however, Dailey's opinion emphasized that his main reason for affirming the decision was Goff's statement that he was unconcerned about the possibility of being transferred to Fort Madison, which Dailey considered to be a veiled threat of physical violence.

The prison officials contend that they can constitutionally punish Goff for threatening legal action if his goal was to intimidate Huckins to keep from performing his duty. We find it unnecessary to address this issue because, as the district court found, Goff's statement that he was ready to return to Fort Madison independently supports punishment for threatening a correctional officer and clearly is not constitutionally protected. Although the disciplinary committee's decision did not discuss the Fort Madison statement, it was in the record before the committee and Dailey relied on this statement to affirm the decision. The district court correctly found that viewing the whole record there was ample evidence to support punishment.

C. Due Process

Finally, Goff argues that the prison officials violated his right to due process by using "some evidence" as the standard of proof for its factual determinations at the disciplinary hearing. Goff contends that the Due Process Clause required the disciplinary committee to find him guilty by at least a preponderance of the evidence, and possibly by clear and convincing evidence, before imposing punishment.

The Supreme Court has previously held that in prison discipline cases, "the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board." Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). In reaching this conclusion, the Court cited with approval the holding of a panel of this court that "[t]he sole and only issue of constitutional substance is whether there exists any evidence at all, that is, whether there is any basis in fact to support the action taken by the prison officials." Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011, 1018 (8th Cir.1974) (cited in Hill, 472 U.S. at 456, 105 S.Ct. at 2774); see also Ryan v. Sargent, 969 F.2d 638, 640 (8th Cir.1992) ("there must be 'some evidence' in the record" to satisfy due process of law), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1000, 122 L.Ed.2d 150 (1993); Engel v. Wendl, 921 F.2d 148, 150 (8th Cir.1990) ("due process is violated unless prison disciplinary committee members possess 'some evidence' before finding an inmate guilty of breaking institution rules").

Goff acknowledges these precedents, but contends that they state only the standard of appellate review, and provide no guidance for determining the burden of proof required by the Due Process Clause at the initial disciplinary hearing. See Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395, 399 n. 4 (3d Cir.1987) (dicta). ⁴ Goff contends that while federal courts use the "some evidence" standard on review to determine whether constitutionally sufficient evidence supports a prison disciplinary decision, the Due Process Clause requires that the prison disciplinary committee base its decision on at least a preponderance of the evidence. ⁵ We disagree.

Inmates are entitled to due process of law and prison authorities must provide an inmate with the appropriate level of due process before depriving him of a protected liberty interest. ⁶ See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-58, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974-75, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). "The requirements of due process are flexible and depend on a balancing of the interests affected by the relevant government action." Hill, 472 U.S. at 454, 105 S.Ct. at 2773. Not all deprivations of interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment require full evidentiary hearings before impartial decision-makers using a preponderance of the evidence or higher standard.

A school principal, for example, may constitutionally deprive a student of protected interests after telling the student what he is accused of doing and "informally discuss[ing] the alleged misconduct with the student minutes after it has occurred." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 582, 95 S.Ct. 729, 740, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). An employer...