Rinehart v. Brewer, Civ. A. No. 77-244-2.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 77-244-2.
• Citation: 483 F. Supp. 165
• Parties: Michael RINEHART et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lou V. BREWER et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

483 F. Supp. 165

Michael RINEHART et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lou V. BREWER et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 77-244-2.

United States District Court, S. D. Iowa, C. D.

January 16, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Prisoner Assistance Clinic, College of Law, University of Iowa, Philip B. Mears, Iowa City, Iowa, for plaintiffs.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., State of Iowa, Jonathan Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, Iowa, for defendants.

RULING AND ORDER

STUART, Chief Judge.

On June 27, 1979, Elmer Matthews, Allen Langley, and Paul Morton filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause why David Scurr, Warden at the Iowa State Penitentiary, and other prison officials should not be held in Contempt of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71 (hereinafter the above-named movants shall be referred to as "plaintiffs", and David Scurr, as well as the other prison officials, shall be referred to as "defendant"). Judge Hanson entered an Order on July 3, 1979, reviewing such motion and ordered the defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the Court's Order of October 4, 1977.

On July 26, 1979, the defendant filed his answer. In this answer, the defendant admits that disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the plaintiffs. In addition, he admits that the disciplinary committees involved relied upon confidential information in rendering their decisions. The defendant contends, however, that summary of the decisions need not contain a summary of the statements or the reports considered to be confidential because the release of such information would put the lives of the informants in immediate jeopardy.

The plaintiffs then filed on September 14, 1979, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Request for Hearing. In this motion, the plaintiffs move that the defendants be held in contempt of the Court's Order of October 4, 1977 which provides for certain requirements when prison officials seek to use confidential information in prison disciplinary proceedings. In the alternative, the plaintiffs requested a hearing to consider any legal or factual matters in issue. In support of its motion, the plaintiffs state: (1) as to Elmer Matthews, and Allen Langley, the disciplinary committees failed to include a statement of reasons relied upon by the committee, and the defendant admitted that no summary of confidential information was prepared; and (2) as to Paul Morton, the disciplinary notice contained insufficient information to allow him to prepare a defense, the disciplinary committee failed to include a statement of reasons relied upon by the committee, and the defendants admitted by inference that no summary of confidential informations was prepared. As a result of these violations, the plaintiffs seek release from Administrative Segregation and a holding that the defendants are in contempt of court.

The defendant responded to the plaintiffs' motion on October 5, 1979. In this response, the defendant argues that the Order of October 4, 1977 requires a summary of confidential information so as to provide a written record of that evidence to allow judicial review. He states that the confidential information relied upon in the plaintiffs' cases consisted of signed written statements that are preserved as part of the confidential record. As a result, the defendant contends that where the evidence is already preserved in writing there is no need to summarize the information. To further summarize the information, according to the defendants, would increase the likelihood of leaking the information resulting in greater danger to the informants. This leaking of information would allegedly result from the fact that more persons would handle the information in the process of summarizing it.

The defendant further alleges that the plaintiffs were given notice that the decisions were based on confidential information, but defendant argues that there was no duty to summarize this information in the statement of reasons because the October 4, 1977 Order authorizes the withholding of such information. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have no right to know the informant's identity and that the confidentiality is necessary if inmates are to have remedies against brutal attacks through the prisons use of informants. The defendant also contends that Morton's disciplinary notice was sufficient to allow him to prepare a defense.

On December 28, 1979, a hearing was held to consider the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. At this hearing, the parties presented their arguments, and the defendant presented the Court with the confidential information relied upon in disciplining the plaintiffs. The Court has reviewed this information, and the Court is presently prepared to rule on the matter before it.

In Rinehart v. Brewer, Civil No. 77-244-2, Judge Hanson entered an Order on October 4, 1977 in which he placed limits on the use of "confidential information" by prison officials to inflict discipline on prison inmates for major rule violations to which the procedural due process requirements articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) are applicable. In this Order, Judge Hanson set forth the following guidelines to be applied by prison officials in future disciplinary prosecutions of inmates wherein "confidential information" is relied upon:

(1) The inmate must be provided advance written notice of the claimed violation at least 24 hours before a hearing thereon. The notice must be sufficiently descriptive to afford the inmate a meaningful opportunity to `marshal the facts and prepare a defense'. Wolff, supra at 564 ,94 S.Ct. 2963. Notice may not, therefore, be withheld on grounds of alleged confidentiality, and no dispositional hearing is valid in the absence of adequate notice. . . .

(2) Subsequent to the determination that the inmate has violated an institutional rule, the factfinders must prepare a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for taking disciplinary action. Such a statement must be prepared in all cases and, in the usual case, is to be given to the inmate. Where information is relied on which prison authorities determine must be kept confidential for personal or institutional security reasons, such information may be omitted from the statement given the inmate, but the statement must indicate the fact of omission. Prison authorities will, however, be required to prepare and preserve a brief written summary of the confidential information. The summary is to include a statement by the factfinders that they relied on the said information in finding that a rule violation had occurred. The summary is to be written or reduced to writing and adopted by the factfinders at approximately the same time the inmate is found to have committed a rule violation. The summary need not identify the informant by name, though it should state whether the informant is an inmate or, if not, what his or her relationship to the penitentiary is (e. g., guard, visitor, relative).

After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted. In so deciding, the Court believes it is necessary to amplify the requirements set forth in Judge Hanson's guidelines contained in the Order of October 4, 1977.

The Court shall first consider the notice requirement set forth therein. According to Judge Hanson, Wolff requires that a prisoner be give notice sufficient to allow him to prepare a defense 24 hours prior to a hearing on the matter. Plaintiff Paul Morton contends that the notice given him was insufficient in light of this standard. The Disciplinary Notice given Morton stated that he was accused on the basis of confidential information of threatening to harm other inmates and...