Harper v. Lee, 90-1871
| Citation | 938 F.2d 104 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | 90-1985,No. 90-1871,90-1871 |
| Parties | Ernest C. HARPER, Appellant, v. Charles W. LEE; Crispus C. Nix; Ronald G. Welder; Debbie Nichols; Charles Harper; Richard Mitchell; Neal W. Boeding; Ruben Baker; Unknown/Unnamed Defendants, Appellees. Ernest C. HARPER, Appellee, v. Charles HARPER, Appellant, and all Unnamed Defendants employed at Iowa State Penitentiary Richard Mitchell; Neal W. Boeding; Ruben Baker, Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Ernest Harper, pro se.
Gordon E. Allen, Susan Achen and Robin A. Humphrey, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Ernest Harper, an Iowa inmate, brought this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against several prison officials, contending the officials violated his due process rights by refusing him access to relevant evidence during disciplinary proceedings against him. The district court awarded Harper nominal damages and court costs against four of the officials, but denied Harper compensatory and punitive damages. The court granted four other officials summary judgment. Harper appeals the summary judgment in favor of the four prevailing officials and the district court's denial of compensatory and punitive damages. The four unsuccessful officials cross appeal the adverse judgment and nominal damages award against them, and the district court's denial of qualified immunity. On Harper's appeal, we affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of the four prevailing officials. On the four unsuccessful officials' cross appeal, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in their favor.
The controlling facts are not disputed. A correctional officer filed a disciplinary report against Harper for making an obscene and threatening statement to the officer. Harper told the investigating officer he wanted certain log books available at his disciplinary hearing that he claimed would show the reporting correctional officer was not present during the incident cited in the report. The log books were not supplied and on the basis of the correctional officer's written report, the disciplinary committee found Harper guilty of violating two prison rules. The committee disciplined Harper with 180 days loss of good time, 180 days administrative segregation, and 15 days disciplinary detention.
Harper filed several institutional appeals contending the log books would prove his innocence. All the appeals were denied on the ground the log books were immaterial and would not assist in Harper's defense. After serving fifteen days in disciplinary detention, Harper filed a supplemental appeal. The warden's executive assistant remanded the case for a rehearing to allow Harper to put the log books in evidence. Harper attended the rehearing and introduced the log books but was not allowed to make any additional statements. After considering the new evidence, the disciplinary committee again found Harper guilty and reimposed the original disciplinary sanctions, with credit for the detention time already served.
Harper filed this action against the prison officials involved in the disciplinary hearings and appeals, claiming the officials violated his due process rights. Harper sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Coughlin
...hearing rectifies the errors at the first hearing, a plaintiff cannot assert a federal due process violation. Harper v. Lee, 938 F.2d 104, 105 (8th Cir.1991); Gaston v. Coughlin, 861 F.Supp. 199, 207 (W.D.N.Y.1994). Thus, if Plaintiff's challenged SHU discipline was imposed after a second h......
-
Wilson v. Harper, Civil No. 4-94-70620.
...him without harm resulting from its temporary deprivation. See Muhannad v. Kinney, 51 F.3d 762, 763-64 (8th Cir.1995); Harper v. Lee, 938 F.2d 104, 105 (8th Cir.1991). Wilson's displacement from the privileged status of an honor lifer to the stricter conditions of disciplinary detention and......
-
Gaston v. Coughlin
...rectified the errors in the first hearing which had resulted in a violation of Plaintiff's due process rights. See Harper v. Lee, 938 F.2d 104, 105 (8th Cir.1991) (no due process violation where inmate ultimately afforded due process protection and experienced no harm). Although the guilty ......
-
Moye v. Selsky, 90 Civ. 2503(RJW).
...forcing inmates to seek relief in state or federal courts." Young v. Hoffman, 970 F.2d at 1156 (emphasis added) (citing Harper v. Lee, 938 F.2d 104, 105 (8th Cir.1991)). Moye was required to resort to an Article 78 proceeding in state court in order to obtain a reversal of the DOCS rulings.......