Homer v. Morris, 18806

• Decision Date: 29 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 18806,18806
• Citation: 684 P.2d 64
• Parties: Jeffrey HOMER and Robert Chavez, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Lawrence W. MORRIS, Roy Van Houton, George Ide, George Jacquart, and Bruce Daniels, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 64

684 P.2d 64

Jeffrey HOMER and Robert Chavez, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Lawrence W. MORRIS, Roy Van Houton, George Ide, George Jacquart, and Bruce Daniels, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 18806.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 29, 1984.

William W. Downes, Jr., Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Brent A. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

STEWART, Justice.

The plaintiffs, Jeffrey Homer and Robert Chavez, are inmates at the Utah State Prison. Their parole dates were revoked following a disciplinary hearing in which the disciplinary committee determined that the plaintiffs had participated in the stabbing of a fellow inmate.

On appeal from the district court's denial of their petitions for writs of habeas corpus, the plaintiffs claim that the hearing was invalid because: (1) written notice of the acts with which they were charged was inadequate; (2) no evidence existed of an unidentified informant's reliability; (3) their request to call witnesses on their behalf was denied; (4) the written record of the disciplinary proceedings was inadequate; and (5) they did not receive detailed written statements of the unidentified informant's statements.

Initially, we note that defendants contend that "habeas corpus is available to challenge the conditions of confinement only in a 'rare case' in which the petitioner has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment." They cite Smith v. Turner, 12 Utah 2d 66, 362 P.2d 581 (1961); and Chapman v. Graham, 2 Utah 2d 156, 270 P.2d 821 (1954), in support. The contention is incorrect. The writ has never been limited to cruel and unusual punishment cases; the cases cited do not hold otherwise.

Historically, the office of the Great Writ was to test the legality of a restraint. E.g., Chapman v. Graham, supra. In recent years its office has been expanded. In Ziegler v. Miliken, Utah, 583 P.2d 1175, 1176 (1978), we stated that the writ may be used to challenge the legality of a restraint and "other alleged violations of basic rights," including violations of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and "anything that would properly fit within that charge."

In the instant case, the plaintiffs allege that their parole date was revoked without due process. Before a parole date has been established, an inmate has no constitutional right to be placed on parole. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). The parties have not, however, addressed the issue whether a parole date that has been established is a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of Article 1, § 7 of the Utah Constitution. The defendants merely assert that admission to parole is not so protected, and cite Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 102 S.Ct. 31, 70 L.Ed.2d 13 (1981). That case, however, was decided on the basis of the status of parole under Ohio law. ¹ Since the issue is not briefed, we decline to decide whether a parole date that has been fixed is a "liberty" interest.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs do have procedural due process rights in a prison disciplinary proceeding for alleged "flagrant or serious misconduct." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974-2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Furthermore, they may assert a denial of such rights in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Ziegler v. Miliken, supra.

We turn then to the plaintiffs' allegations that the disciplinary proceeding violated procedural due process. Plaintiffs do not contend, nor could they validly do so, that they are entitled to all the procedural rights afforded in a criminal trial. The nature of due process is not the same in every setting. Necessarily the existence and scope of the specific procedural safeguards recognized are determined by the context and nature of the proceeding, and the societal, institutional and personal interests at stake. See Wolff v. McDonnell, supra. Clearly, both the inmates and the prison have an interest in the security of the prison and the safety of inmates. Without challenging that proposition, the plaintiffs contend they were not given the procedural safeguards to which they were entitled.

1. Plaintiffs' claim that they were not given adequate notice of the nature of the violation with which they were charged is without merit. Six days before the disciplinary hearing was held, each of the plaintiffs were given the following documents: an "Inmate Violation Report"; a "Notice of Hearing and Statement of Inmate Rights"; a "Reporting Witness Statement"; the statement of an unidentified inmate-informer called an "Inmate 'X' Statement"; and copies of five different incident reports.

The inmate violation report given to Homer alleges that he violated § 1.d.2(b) and (j) of the prison disciplinary rules, which prohibits "any act involving violence; or any threat or advocacy of violence made verbally, physically or in writing," and "tampering with or blocking any locking device." Chavez's inmate violation report alleges that he violated § 1.d.2(a)(1), which prohibits "any act chargeable as a crime under the laws of Utah or of the United States ..." and "interfering with or failing to attend count; failure to be at designated or assigned areas; being in an unauthorized area."

The inmate "X" statement set forth the evidence supplied by a confidential inmate-informer. It stated that "inmate X gave testimony stating that inmate Jeff Homer, No. 14188 was involved in the stabbing of Steve Bumpers on September 18, 1981." Another inmate "X" statement named Robert Chavez as also having been involved in the same stabbing. The five incident reports and the recording witness statements were more specific about the stabbing of the victim. The recording witness statements state the time and date of the stabbing of the victim and the type of weapon used. They also state that following the stabbing a towel and bedding that were freshly laundered and that appeared to be bloodstained were found in Chavez's cell. The reporting witness statement with respect to Homer also stated the time and date of the stabbing and that the locking device for Homer's cell had been tampered with so that he had control over the opening and closing of the cell door.

These documents, taken together, gave the plaintiffs sufficient written notice of the details of the violations alleged to prepare a defense. Although the details of the charges were provided in several different documents rather than one, that is of no constitutional consequence. The plaintiffs were sufficiently apprised of the charges to meet the requirements of due process. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64, 94 S.Ct. 2693, 2978-2979, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

2. The plaintiffs also contend that their rights...