Morris v. Auger, 86-1291

• Decision Date: 26 August 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-1291,86-1291
• Citation: 414 N.W.2d 858
• Parties: Brian L. MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Calvin AUGER, Warden, Iowa State Men's Reformatory, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 858

414 N.W.2d 858

Brian L. MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v.Calvin AUGER, Warden, Iowa State Men's Reformatory, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 86-1291.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Aug. 26, 1987.

Charles Harrington, Appellate Defender, and B. John Burns, Asst. Appellate Defender, for petitioner-appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and John M. Parmeter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent-appellee.

Considered by OXBERGER, C.J., and SCHLEGEL and SACKETT, JJ.

SACKETT, Judge.

PetitionerBrian L. Morris, a prisoner at the Iowa State Men's Reformatory in Anamosa, appeals from the district court's order denying his application for postconviction relief.Morris asserts he was denied due process because the prison disciplinary committee did not give Morris sufficient notice of the charges against him to allow him to prepare an adequate defense.We affirm.

On October 30, 1985, Morris received the following disciplinary notice:

During the past thirty days, inmate Morris has threatened, harassed, assaulted, and otherwise coerced other inmates, attempting to gain sexual compliance from them.Certain information of a confidential nature has been deleted from this report in order to preserve the security, tranquility, and good order of the institution.

Morris waived his right to a 24-hour notice prior to the disciplinary hearing.In an interview prior to the hearing Morris did not request any witnesses to appear in his behalf.On October 31, 1985, a disciplinary hearing was held and the disciplinary committee found Morris guilty of violating the following institution rules:

1.Rule 2--assault,

2.Rule 4--extortion,

3.Rule 14--threats,

4.Rule 15--sexual misconduct,

5.Rule 26--verbal abuse,

6.Rule 41--complicity.

Morris was sentenced to a period of solitary confinement, disciplinary detention, removal from the honor roll and loss of two days good time.The adjustment committee upheld Morris' conviction.

Morris filed an application for postconviction relief challenging the sufficiency of the notice of charges against him.The district court overruled the state's motion for summary judgment.Thereafter the district court denied Morris' application.This appeal followed.

I.

Ordinarily, postconviction relief actions are treated as special proceedings at law and review is on assigned errors only.Kelly v. Nix, 329 N.W.2d 287, 291(Iowa1983).However, where a fundamental constitutional issue is raised, the appellate court makes its own independent evaluation of the totality of circumstances in a de novo review.Williams v. State, 378 N.W.2d 894, 896(Iowa1985).The petitioner has the burden of proof to show a constitutional violation by a preponderance of the evidence.Id. at 897.

II.

Morris' only argument before this court is that he was denied due process of law because the notice of charges against him did not provide sufficient facts on which the charges were based and thus he was unable to adequately defend himself.He argues the discipline committee used the rule permitting omission from the disciplinary notice of information obtained from confidential sources to "intentionally conceal enough details of the incident to make it virtually impossible to ascertain the nature of the offense."

A.In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 951(1974), the Supreme Court established minimum requirements of procedural due process apply to prisoners in disciplinary proceedings.However, the requirements imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution are flexible and variable depending upon the particular situation being examined.Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472, 103 S.Ct. 864, 872, 74 L.Ed.2d 675, 688(1983).In determining what due process applies in a prison setting, the courts must be mindful that "one cannot automatically apply procedural rules designed for free citizens in an open society ... to the very different situation presented by a disciplinary proceeding in a state prison."Wolff, 418 U.S. at 560, 94 S.Ct. at 2977, 41 L.Ed.2d at 953.

Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d at 951(citations omitted).

In addition, prison administrators should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.Helms, 459 U.S. at 472, 103 S.Ct. at 872, 74 L.Ed.2d at 688-89.

Among the minimum requirements of due process in a prison is that inmates must receive notice of the charges to which they are to respond.Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2978, 41 L.Ed.2d at 956;Harmon v. Auger, 768 F.2d 270, 276(8th Cir.1985).That notice must be sufficient to inform the inmate of the charges and to enable him to marshal facts and prepare a defense.Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2978, 41 L.Ed.2d at 956;Grady v. Wilken, 735 F.2d 303, 305(8th Cir.1984);Wagner v. State, 364 N.W.2d 246, 249(Iowa1985).

Morris cites Rinehart v. Brewer, 483 F.Supp. 165, 169(S.D. Iowa1980), as establishing that due process requires notice of charges contain the following information:

(1) The date and general time the alleged incident took place, as well as the place the alleged incident occurred,

(2) A general description of the alleged incident itself for which the prisoner is being charged, and the citation for the prison rule allegedly violated, and

(3) The identity of other persons, if any, involved in the incident.

However, the Rinehart court goes on to say that prison officials may delete from the disciplinary notice specific facts concerning the incident if the inclusion of such facts would, in and of themselves, result in security problems for the institution.Id.SeeGrady, 735 F.2d at 305(Use of confidential information in prison disciplinary proceedings is not unconstitutional).If facts are deleted, prison officials must state in the disciplinary notice that such information has been excluded and that the excluded class of information is being deleted because the information in and of itself would result in security problems for the institution.Wolff, 418 U.S. at 567-70, 94 S.Ct. at 2980-81, 41 L.Ed.2d at 957-59;Grady, 735 F.2d at 303;Rinehart, 483 F.Supp. at 169.SeeDawson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 896 at 899(7th Cir.1983).

The instant case is analogous to facts and issues in Dawson.There petitioner/prisoner challenged the constitutionality of disciplinary action taken against him because the notice stated only that he and his cellmate had planned to escape during October, 1977.Dawson, 719 F.2d at 897.All other information and its source were confidential.Id.The petitioner claimed on appeal the notice had not provided him with enough facts upon which the charge was based to defend himself.Id. at 898.In upholding the petitioner's conviction based on the notice...