Ramirez v. Nietzel, 2012–SC–000131–DG.

• Decision Date: 20 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2012–SC–000131–DG.,2012–SC–000131–DG.
• Citation: 424 S.W.3d 911
• Parties: Jose RAMIREZ, Appellant v. Tracy NIETZEL, In her Official Capacity as Adjustment Officer at the Northpoint Training Center; and The Kentucky Department of Corrections, Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

424 S.W.3d 911

Jose RAMIREZ, Appellant

v.Tracy NIETZEL, In her Official Capacity as Adjustment Officer at the Northpoint Training Center; and The Kentucky Department of Corrections, Appellees.

No. 2012–SC–000131–DG.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

March 20, 2014.

Melissa N. Henke, Counsel for Appellant.

Wesley Warden Duke, Counsel for Appellees.

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice MINTON.

Jose Ramirez was found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing of committing physical action against another inmate resulting in death or serious physical injury. Ramirez was assessed a penalty of 180 days' solitary confinement, forfeiture of two years' non-restorable good-time credit, and restitution in the amount of $556.17. He then filed a declaration of rights action in circuit court, effectively appealing the finding of guilt, arguing the violation of his due-process rights because the prison's disciplinary hearing officer refused to allow him to call the assault victim and declined to view surveillance-camera footage of the incident. The circuit court denied Ramirez's petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

We accepted discretionary review and now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. To effectuate the due process rights established for prisoners by the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate in Wolff v. McDonnell,¹ the circumstances of this case lead us to address in two ways the minimum due process requirements in prison-discipline cases.

We hold first that when denying a prisoner's request for a particular witness in a disciplinary proceeding, the Adjustment Officer (AO) ² is not required to provide contemporaneously a detailed reason for the denial of the witness. But if the prisoner challenges the denial by appealing the discipline imposed, the AO must provide for the record on review the AO's reason for denying the witness. And the reason must be stated in sufficient detail to support a finding that the denial was “logically related to preventing undue hazards to institutional safety or correctional goals.” ³ The AO's reason can be provided in camera or under seal and need not be disclosed to the prisoner.

Second, we hold that an AO must review surveillance footage, or similar documentary evidence, if requested by the prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding. The AO may review the documentary evidence in camera if there are concerns about institutional safety or other obstacles to the proper operation of penal institutions. In refusing to allow the inmate to view the documentary evidence, the AO—as with denying witness testimony—must simply provide a reason “logically related to preventing undue hazards to institutional safety or correctional goals.” ⁴

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

A fight involving several inmates occurred at Northpoint Training Center, a medium-security prison. Two inmates suffered serious injuries; and one of them, Henry Rodgers, was taken to a local hospital for treatment. While Northpoint investigated the incident, inmate Ramirez was placed in administrative segregation. Throughout the investigation, Ramirez maintained that he did not participate in the fight because he was asleep in his dorm when it occurred. The investigating officer did not believe Ramirez's alibi, instead finding that Ramirez participated in the fight along with at least eight other inmates.

The investigating officer prepared a report, and a disciplinary hearing was scheduled. Ramirez received a copy of the investigating officer's report, and an inmate legal aide was assigned to Ramirez to help in preparing a defense. At the hearing, AO Tracy Nietzel presided. She reviewed and relied upon the investigatory report in reaching her decision. Ramirez pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and requested fellow inmate Louis Pena–Martinez and victim Rodgers be called as witnesses in his defense. The AO permitted Pena–Martinez to testify via telephone but refused to allow Rodgers to testify, citing security concerns. Pena–Martinez, corroborating Ramirez's proffered alibi, testified that Ramirez was asleep in his dorm when the incident occurred. Ramirez also attempted to introduce surveillance-camera footage of the incident; but the AO denied his request, again citing institutional safety grounds.

At the close of the hearing, the AO found sufficient evidence to establish Ramirez's guilt. As punishment, Ramirez was ordered to serve 180 days' solitary confinement, forfeit two years' non-restorable good-time credit, and pay $556.17 in restitution. Ramirez appealed this decision to Northpoint's Warden, who affirmed the AO's finding. After exhausting all administrative appeals, Ramirez filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court. The circuit court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

II. ANALYSIS.

Ramirez argues he was denied a fundamentally fair proceeding because the AO refused his request to call Rodgers as a witness and declined to view the surveillance-camera footage. Ramirez argues that (1) at a minimum, the AO should have allowed Rodgers's sworn statement even if Rodgers was not allowed to testify live at the hearing and (2) even if Ramirez was not allowed to view the surveillance-film footage himself, the hearing officer should have viewed it. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we must reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Prisons are unique environments. “Guards and inmates co-exist in direct and intimate contact. Tension between them is unremitting. Frustration, resentment, and despair are commonplace.” ⁵ And although “[t]here is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country [,]” the full panoply of rights due a defendant in inmate disciplinary proceedings does not apply.⁶ Put simply, prison disciplinary proceedings are not criminal prosecutions; and punishment is imposed as warranted by the severity of the offense in order to correct and control inmate behavior within the prison.

Ramirez, having been stripped of statutorily granted good-time credit, has a liberty interest ⁷ at stake and, as a result, is entitled to a modicum of due process. But only the “minimum requirements of procedural due process appropriate for the circumstances must be observed.” ⁸ Accordingly, an inmate facing disciplinary proceedings must be given: a hearing before any deprivation of property occurs; advance notice of the claimed violation; an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence “when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals”; and a written statement by the factfinder detailing the evidence relied on and the reasons for disciplinary action.⁹ The proceedings in the instant case failed to satisfy these requirements.

Admittedly, our review of prison disciplinary cases is materially limited. But a review so limited as to be meaningless cannot satisfy the requirements of due process. Generally speaking, in the context of prison discipline, if “the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record[,]” ¹⁰ due process is satisfied. And determining whether “some evidence” is present in the record does not “require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses,or weighing of the evidence.” ¹¹ Even “meager” evidence will suffice.¹² The primary inquiry is “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” ¹³ If “some evidence” is satisfied, the fear of arbitrary government action is removed and no due-process violation is found.

Directing our attention to the facts of this case, for the sake of argument, it is difficult to say the evidence against Ramirez fails to satisfy the “some evidence” standard. The investigating officer concluded that Ramirez participated in the fight, and the AO who heard the evidence adopted the investigating officer's report by reference. Although the evidence presented against Ramirez is not very detailed, prison disciplinary cases do not require “evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” ¹⁴ At least arguably, there was evidence presented to support the finding of discipline against Ramirez. But any examination for due process must amount to more than a glance. Looking deeper here, the mechanism through which “some evidence” may ultimately have been presented against Ramirez was fundamentally flawed. Relying on the existence of “some evidence” to indicate due process is satisfied becomes a fallacy if the evidence was produced in a constitutionally deficient proceeding. Today, we attempt to rectify these deficiencies going forward.

A. The Reason Provided by Nietzel for Denying Rodgers's Testimony was Overly Broad.

Of course, an inmate does not have an unfettered right to call a particular witness or admit certain documentary evidence. Due process is a malleable concept, conforming to meet the particular circumstances. In the prison setting, the right to call witnesses is limited based on the legitimate needs and concerns of the prison. “Prison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the hearing with reasonable limits[,]” ¹⁵ and circumscribing an inmate's right to call witnesses is one such way of exercising this discretion. Ramirez does not dispute that his right to call witnesses is limited. Ramirez argues, instead, that the AO did not provide valid justification for why even Rodgers's written testimony could not be admitted. Indeed, the AO, after refusing Rodgers as a witness because he was the victim, simply offered the oft-repeated ground of institutional safety as the underlying reason for that decision.¹⁶

Historically, prison disciplinary procedures have not required a particularly detailed reason behind hearing officers' decisions. To this point, at least in Kentucky, an...