Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth

• Decision Date: 22 July 1992
• Docket Number: RASHEED-BEY,No. 91-2997,91-2997
• Citation: 969 F.2d 357
• Parties: Taajwar K., formerly known as Lorenzo Stone, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack R. DUCKWORTH, Warden, Henry Abbott, Jr., Ron Maddox, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 357

969 F.2d 357

Taajwar K. RASHEED-BEY, formerly known as Lorenzo Stone Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack R. DUCKWORTH, Warden, Henry Abbott, Jr., Ron Maddox, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-2997.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 19, 1992.

Decided July 22, 1992.

William E. Marsh (argued), Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff-appellant.

David L. Steiner, (argued), Robert B. Wente, Deputy Attys. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Federal Litigation, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants-appellees.

Before FLAUM and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Taajwar K. Rasheed-Bey, formerly known as Lorenzo Stone, is an inmate serving a life sentence for murder in the Indiana State Prison (ISP). Rasheed-Bey sued several ISP officials and employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was deprived of a liberty interest without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the defendants sentenced him to disciplinary segregation following an inadequate hearing. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Rasheed-Bey's hearing was constitutionally sound, but then granted the defendants qualified immunity. Because we agree with the district court that the defendants did not violate Rasheed-Bey's constitutional rights, we affirm its judgment on that basis; the district court need not have relied upon the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

I.

On August 29, 1985, ISP investigator Henry Abbott, Jr. opened a letter addressed to Rasheed-Bey as part of a routine screening for contraband. ¹ The envelope's exterior indicated that the letter was from Dorothy Halley of West Palm Beach, Florida. The envelope contained a $500.00 money order and a handwritten letter that read:

Hi. Got your letter also the money order. I don't want to get mixed up in something that I don't know about. You could have sent the money order to Mr. Brown yourself. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but if you wanted to send me a personal gift, that's fine, but that just looked funny to me....

It looked funny to Mr. Abbott, too; he immediately notified postal inspectors with whom he was working that he had discovered the money order. ² Postal inspectors later confirmed that the money order in the Halley letter originally had been issued for $1.00 and then had been altered to show a $500.00 value. Consequently, Mr. Abbott directed that Rasheed-Bey be transferred to a segregation unit pending an investigation, and provided Rasheed-Bey with a "Report of Investigation of Incident" and a "Conduct Report," which are the formal documents ISP uses to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. The investigative report stated:

It has been determined that inmate Rasheed (Stone) # 10006 on or about Aug[ust] 1985 did thr[ough] a David Vokavich send an altered money order # 33110968476 850202 480770 500.00 (raised from a one dollar money order) thr[ough] the U.S. Mail to a Dorothy B. Halley. Mr. Rasheed (Stone) violated title 18 USC [sic] and title 18 USC 1341. See File # 85-050.

The conduct report stated:

It has been determined that on or about the above date [August 1985] inmate Rasheed (Stone) # 10006 did send thr[ough] a David Vokavich a 500.00 dollar U.S. Postal money order which had been altered/raised from a one dollar money order. Mr. Rasheed (Stone) violated title 18 USC 500 and title 18 USC 1341. See File # 85-050.

Rasheed-Bey pleaded not guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate, and indicated that there were no witnesses whom he wished to call at his hearing. A hearing before the Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) was held on October 1, but the record does not disclose the nature and purpose of that hearing. On October 29, however, Mr. Abbott provided Rasheed-Bey notice of a second disciplinary charge, this one stemming from the October 1 hearing:

While appearing at a CAB hearing on Oct. 1, 1985 it has been determined that inmate Rasheed (Stone) did perjure his self [sic] by making the statement that he had no prior money order involvement--information received from federal postal inspectors clearly revealed that inmate Rasheed is also involved in a money order scheme in Harriman, Tenn. that began prior to inmate Rasheed's CAB hearing. See case # 85050.

The CAB held a second hearing for Rasheed-Bey on November 1, 1985. Mr. Abbott met with the CAB before the hearing, reviewing his file with them and providing them an unsworn briefing regarding his investigation. ³ Mr. Abbott was not present when Rasheed-Bey and his lay advocate appeared for the CAB hearing. During the hearing, Rasheed-Bey sought disclosure of file number 85-050, which was considered confidential. ⁴ The CAB denied that request as well as Rasheed-Bey's request to cross-examine Mr. Abbott. Rasheed-Bey and his advocate sought to get the charges against Rasheed-Bey dismissed on procedural grounds. The CAB declined to do so, however, and found Rasheed-Bey guilty:

The CAB did hear this report and statements from accused and Lay Adv. The CAB does find the accused guilty of the charge of Code 100/11. We feel that there is enough evidence in Investigator's Case # 85-050 to find in favor of the report as written. Federal Authorities have substantiated the evidence.

The CAB imposed a three-year term of disciplinary segregation, although Rasheed-Bey ultimately served just under one year in segregation. Compared to the general prison population, segregated prisoners are more closely confined and enjoy fewer privileges.

Rasheed-Bey appealed the CAB's decision to ISP Superintendent Jack Duckworth, arguing that his request to see confidential file number 85-050 should have been honored. Superintendent Duckworth denied the appeal, stating that "[a] copy of the investigative summary would have been available to you per section 14, B, (8)." ⁵ Rasheed-Bey then sued Duckworth and other ISP officials and employees under section 1983, alleging that he was deprived of a liberty interest without due process of law. Specifically, he alleged that his hearing before the CAB was constitutionally deficient because the contents of file number 85-050 was not disclosed to him. That nondisclosure, argued Rasheed-Bey, prevented him from presenting a meaningful defense at the hearing. The defendants asserted that Rasheed-Bey received all the process he was due at the CAB hearing, and that in the alternative, the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded them from liability if the court should find that disclosure of their confidential file was constitutionally required.

After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the "defendants' conduct of the CAB hearing was appropriate, even though the defendants' conduct denied the plaintiff access to certain information considered by the hearing board in deciding his case." R. 106 at 24. Despite the fact that the district court found that the defendants did not violate Rasheed-Bey's due process rights, the court proceeded to hold that "the doctrine of qualified immunity shields the defendants from any liability in this action for Mr. Rasheed-Bey's alleged violation of his right to due process under law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." R. 106 at 25. The district court's reliance on qualified immunity was superfluous; we agree that the defendants provided Rasheed-Bey due process of law, and therefore that no constitutional violation is present in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment on the basis of "no liability" rather than on the basis of qualified immunity.

II.

The question in this case is whether the process ISP used to impose disciplinary segregation against Rasheed-Bey satisfied the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ⁶ We believe that it did. The requirements imposed by the Due Process Clause are "flexible and variable dependent upon the particular situation being examined." Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472, 103 S.Ct. 864, 871, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). We "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 v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 560, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2977, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Nonetheless, "a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protection when he is imprisoned for a crime. There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country." Id. at 555-56, 94 S.Ct. at 2974. Accordingly, in considering the command of the Due Process Clause in light of the peculiar exigencies of the prison setting, the Supreme Court has held that an inmate, while not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights accorded to free citizens, is entitled to fundamental protection from the arbitrary action of government. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556-58, 94 S.Ct. at 2974-76; Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 472, 103 S.Ct. at 871.

Beginning with Wolff, the Supreme Court established the minimum requirements of procedural due process to be afforded to prisoners in disciplinary proceedings. Before being deprived of a protected liberty interest, a prisoner is entitled to (1) advance (at least 24 hours before hearing) written notice of the claimed violation; (2) the opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker; (3) the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence (when consistent with institutional safety); and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-80, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Inmates have no right to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses; thus, a disciplinary board's...