Alexander v. Schleder
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54736
| E.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Tony B. Alexander, a federal inmate, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging prison disciplinary sanctions.
- Petitioner alleged due process violations for not allowing surveillance video in his disciplinary hearings.
- At the time of the incidents, Alexander was at Estill FCI; later he was at Atwater and then Pollock facilities.
- Two incident reports, Nos. 1658527 and 1660209, led to disciplinary hearings by DHO Scott Schleder.
- The DHO found violations and imposed 30 days disciplinary segregation and loss of 27 days good conduct time; Code 300 charge was expunged.
- Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies through the prison's appellate process, which denied relief at RD and central levels.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was satisfied when DHO relied on staff review of video evidence | Alexander argues the DHO should have personally reviewed the videotape. | Schleder/Respondent contends DHO can rely on staff summaries of videotape. | No due process violation; DHO’s reliance on Buckler’s memorandum sufficed. |
| Whether exclusion or non-personal review of videotape violated Wolff requirements | Petitioner contends Wolff mandates personal review of exculpatory video. | Respondent argues Wolff allows reliance on documentary evidence and staff reports. | Not violated; Wolff protections met and videotape adequately reviewed. |
| Whether petitioner's claims were exhausted and properly presented | Alexander asserts proper exhaustion. | Respondent maintains exhaustion satisfied. | Exhaustion satisfied; claims properly presented through administrative remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings; notice, opportunity to present, and written reasons required; some evidence rule)
- Hill v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (some evidence standard for disciplinary sanctions; not all procedural rights required in prisons)
- Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1996) (earned good time liberty interest; due process minima in punishment)