791 N.W.2d 567
Minn. Ct. App.2010Background
- Disciplinary hearing in 2002 found Aziz violated prison rules for saving a legal document on a shared hard drive; 30 days in segregation plus extended incarceration for every three days of segregation and restitution were imposed.
- In 2004, Aziz was disciplined for possessing an unauthorized book and not returning it; hearing officer stated the “some evidence” standard and imposed 60 days in segregation and restitution.
- In 2009, Aziz filed a habeas petition arguing Carrillo’s rule that the “some evidence” standard violates due process should retroactively affect his 2002 and 2004 sanctions.
- The district court denied relief, holding Carrillo did not apply retroactively to these disciplinary hearings.
- Carrillo held the “some evidence” standard is improper at the fact-finding level in prison disciplinary proceedings; retroactivity under Chevron Oil factors was at issue.
- This court affirms, concluding Carrillo does not apply retroactively to Aziz’s 2002 and 2004 disciplinary findings and the district court’s denial was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carrillo applies retroactively to 2002/2004 hearings | Aziz argues Carrillo should be retroactively applied | Fabian contends no retroactive effect | No retroactive application; Carrillo not applied to 2002/2004 hearings |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrillo v. Camilo, 701 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 2005) (new rule; some evidence violates due process at fact-finding level in prison discipline; three-factor Chevron test for retroactivity)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings; retroactivity considerations discussed)
- Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (approved some evidence standard in prison disciplinary context)
- Goff v. Dailey, 991 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1993) (some evidence standard at disciplinary fact-finding not per se due process violation)
- State v. McKenzie, 542 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1996) (disciplinary proceedings not criminal; different due process considerations)
- Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1982) (applies Chevron Oil three-factor retroactivity test to state-law rules)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new constitutional rules of criminal procedure; Teague not controlling for disciplinary proceedings)