Prison Disciplinary Hearings Are Biased Against Prisoners
PRISON DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS ARE BIASED AGAINST PRISONERS
The sad part of prison discipline is that the factual determinations of disciplinary hearing officers must only be based on "some evidence" in the record to support the disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill 427 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). This is the lowest standard of review in the entire American justice system: it literally means that if there is an indication anywhere in the record that some misconduct occurred, then the disciplinary hearing officer can find the prisoner guilty. PRP of Grantham, 168 Wn.2d 204, 216, 277 P.3d 285 (2009). If a correctional officer says a door was damaged and that he seen a particular inmate do the damage, the hearing officer COULD find guilt because the correctional officer's report said he witnessed it happen and the report is "some evidence." Sickening.
As such, court review of prison disciplinary hearings is properly limited to a determination of whether the action taken was so arbitrary and capricious so as to deny the inmate a fundamentally fair proceeding. Grantham, 168 Wn.2d at 215. A prison disciplinary hearing is arbitrary and capricious if the inmate was not afforded the minimum due process protections applicable in such cases. PRP of Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 396, 978 P.2d 1083 (1999). Minimum due process in these cases means that the inmate must (1) receive notice of the alleged violation (includes all evidence against the inmate), (2) be provided with the opportunity to present documentary and other evidence, (3) be provided with the opportunity to call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to the institutional safety and correctional goals, (4) receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon, and (5) receive a written statement of the reasons for the disciplinary action. Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d at 396-97. The U.S. Supreme Court has also mandated all states to guarantee the following procedural due process in all prison disciplinary hearings: (1) written notice of the disciplinary violation (includes all evidence against the inmate), (2) the right to call witnesses at the hearing, (3) assistance in preparing for the hearing, (4) a written statement of the reasons for being found guilty, and (5) a fair and impartial decision maker at the hearing. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974).
If an inmate challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at a disciplinary hearing, they have to remember that the standard is SO low that all the courts need is for there to be ANY mention of the underlying conduct on the record connected to the inmate. The more apt things to pay attention to are the aforementioned due process requirements, because prison officials are typically callous to whether an inmate is right or wrong, and are so focused on looking for reasons to find guilt and impose punishment that they often miss a step or two in the process of running the inmate through the hearing.
A showing that a government agency failed to comply with its own regulations is sufficient to establish that one is entitled to relief from the courts under Washington laws. PRP of Lopez, 126 Wn.App. 891, 894-95, 110 P.3d 764 (2005)(citing PRP of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 147-48, 866 P.2d 8 (1994)). DOC policy is NOT law nor is it considered a regulation. Joyce v. DOC, 155 Wn.2d 306, 323, 119 P.3d 825 (2005)("[U]nlike administrative rules and other formally promulgated agency regulations, internal policies and directives generally do not create law."). See also RCW 34.05.230(1)(policy is advisory only), and see also PRP of Gossett, 7 Wn.App.2d 610, 622, 435 P.3d 314 (2019)(DOC policy is not law). Conversely, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) are administrative rules and regulations which are given the force and effect of laws, and qualify as "laws of the State of Washington." Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d at 149 n.6.
Washington DOC's administrative rules and regulations are located under WAC Title 137. These administrative rules are the law as it pertains to prisoners, and in particular WAC 137-28-285 sets out the rights that inmates have when they attend prison disciplinary hearings. Among the more notable rights set out are the right to at least 24-hours advance notice of the hearing (meaning that they have to give the inmate the write-up AND all the supporting evidence at least 24-hours before the hearing), and also that the inmate can give written questions to the hearings officer to ask the witnesses. If the hearings officer holds the hearing, and doesn't follow the procedure to protect the inmate's rights at the hearing, then an appeal for violating due process will be the answer to the problem. Even if the appeal is denied by prison officials, the inmate can then file a PRP on the matter, alleging a due process violation, even if he didn't lose any good-time as part of the sanction. Kozol v. DOC, 185 Wn.2d 405, 379 P.3d 72 (2016).
As such, an inmate would be advised to be sure to list witnesses to be called for witness statements to be used at the hearing. The hearing officer has to consider those statements when weighing the evidence, which gives the inmate the opportunity to establish the record in case it has to be reviewed by a court later. And if the prison officials fail or refuse to allow the inmate to call witnesses, its automatic grounds for reversal on appeal or later court review. See Workman v. Mitchell, 503 F.2d 1201, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 1974)(an inmate's right to call witnesses in a prison disciplinary hearing is guaranteed). Accord Williams v. Thomas, 492 F. Appx. 732, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2012)(inmates have the right to call witnesses in a prison disciplinary hearing, regardless of whether the proposed witness would have stated the inmate did not commit the alleged prohibited act).
It’s up to the inmate to know their rights and invoke them at the hearing, because the prison officials sure aren't going to.
