Griffin-Bey v. Bowersox, GRIFFIN-BE
| Decision Date | 03 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | A,No. 92-2044,GRIFFIN-BE,92-2044 |
| Citation | 978 F.2d 455 |
| Parties | Lamontppellant, v. Michael BOWERSOX; Larry Rhodes; Ronda Pash, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Lamont Griffin-Bey, appellant, pro se.
Daniel M. Zureich, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.
Before GIBSON, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Lamont Griffin-Bey, a Missouri inmate previously incarcerated at Potosi Correctional Center (PCC), appeals the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for denial of his constitutional rights to procedural due process at a disciplinary hearing. We affirm.
In April 1989, the mailroom supervisor at PCC, Debbie Holman, now Debbie Reed, filed a conduct violation report against Griffin-Bey alleging that the mailroom intercepted a letter written by Griffin-Bey to another PCC inmate, Rondell Williams, in violation of PCC Rule 37, which prohibits inmates from corresponding with each other. Prior to the disciplinary hearing, the interviewing officer noted that Griffin-Bey stated the "write up [was] false." During his disciplinary hearing, Griffin-Bey stated: He then asked to see the letter so that he could determine if it was his, but that request was denied by Rhonda Pash, chairperson of the disciplinary committee. On the basis of the conduct violation report and his statement, which the committee seemed to take as an admission, the committee found Griffin-Bey guilty and sentenced him to ten days in disciplinary detention.
In his verified complaint, Griffin-Bey alleged that Pash's denial of his request to see the letter during his disciplinary hearing, her failure to include all of the statements he made at the disciplinary hearing in the committee's report, and her failure to make a factual determination that he actually wrote the letter before concluding that he was guilty violated his right to procedural due process. Griffin-Bey alleged that Larry Rhodes, Acting Assistant Superintendent at PCC, violated his constitutional rights when he approved the sanctions recommended by Pash and failed to correct her constitutional violations. Griffin-Bey alleged that Michael Bowersox, Acting Superintendent at PCC, violated his constitutional rights because Bowersox knew of Pash's and Rhodes's practices to deny inmates their constitutional rights and he was grossly negligent for allowing these practices to continue. Griffin-Bey also alleged that defendants failed to follow PCC policies and procedures.
The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Griffin-Bey argues that the district court erred because, regardless of the outcome of the hearing, he had the clearly-established right to marshal a defense and therefore, Pash unconstitutionally denied him an opportunity to see the letter he was accused of writing. He also argues he had a right to expect prison officials to follow their own regulations.
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. United States ex. rel. Glass v. Medtronic, Inc., 957 F.2d 605, 607 (8th Cir.1992). After carefully reviewing the entire record, we conclude that Griffin-Bey's first argument must fail because he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
At&T Communications v. Southwestern Bell Tele.
...532, 542, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, reh'g denied, 382 U.S. 875, 86 S.Ct. 18, 15 L.Ed.2d 118 (1965); accord Griffin-Bey v. Bowersox, 978 F.2d 455, 456 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hood, 593 F.2d 293, 296 (8th Cir.1979). This rule is also applied in administrative cases. See, e.g., ......
-
Wong v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.
...procedures only needed to satisfy the minimum requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. See Griffin–Bey v. Bowersox, 978 F.2d 455, 457 (8th Cir.1992). The mere fact that the state had established certain statutory review procedures did not transform those procedures into s......
-
Clay v. Steele
...federal court's inquiry is not whether prison regulation was violated but whether Constitution was violated. Griffin-Bey v. Bowersox, 978 F.2d 455, 457 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).Plaintiff's Loss of Property Claims Fail to State a Claim Under § 1983 Plaintiff makes several claims that he ......
-
Reising v. Lewien
...that presentation of the [phone] to him would have resulted in a different outcome at the disciplinary hearing." Griffin-Bey v. Bowersox, 978 F.2d 455, 456 (8th Cir. 1992) (denial of inmate's request at disciplinary hearing to see letter that he allegedly wrote did not violate his due proce......