Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977

Flowers and Dannar, inmates at the Medical Center, found two homemade weapons in Room 222 during a July 2009 search in the common area near the entry door.
Weapons were located between a wall and an electrical conduit; staff retrieved one weapon using a ladder and reported the finding in an incident report.
The Unit Discipline Committee referred the matter to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, who conducted a hearing ten days later; Flowers and Dannar waived staff representation and presented no evidence or witnesses.
The Hearing Officer found the greater weight of the evidence showed both inmates possessed a weapon and imposed sanctions including loss of good conduct time, disciplinary segregation, and loss of privileges.
Flowers and Dannar filed § 2241 petitions claiming due process violations; the district court dismissed, applying the 'some evidence' standard from Hill to uphold the sanctions.
The warden introduced evidence outside the record about inmate responsibilities to keep areas free of contraband; the court addressed whether such evidence supports a due process finding under Hill.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hill's some-evidence standard applies here	Flowers/Dannar contend standard applies to due process in § 2241	Warden argues Hill standard governs prison disciplinary sanctions	Hill standard applied; some evidence supports findings
Whether evidence supports possession of a weapon in a common area	Weapons were in a shared/unauthorized location not within flowers/dannar's control	Weapons found in common area justify responsibility under shared-area rules	There is some evidence that weapons were in a common area accessible to both inmates
Whether collective responsibility justifies the sanctions	Collective responsibility is improper when weapons are found outside assigned living area	Inmates in shared room bear responsibility for contraband in common areas	Record supports some evidence despite location nuance; not necessary to resolve beyond common-area finding
Whether the warden's outside-record evidence about contraband responsibilities violated due process	Extrarecord statements should not affect due-process analysis	Official policies support inmate responsibility for area free of contraband	Court did not require exclusion of such evidence to uphold some-evidence finding

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court 1985) (some evidence suffices for due-process in prison discipline)
Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990) (collective responsibility for shared contraband existed in some circuits)
Shelby v. Whitehouse, 399 F. App'x 121 (7th Cir. 2010) (collective culpability for contraband in shared space treated as some evidence)
Flannagan v. Tamez, 368 F. App'x 586 (5th Cir. 2010) (collective responsibility in shared areas supported disciplinary sanctions)
Santiago v. Nash, 224 F. App'x 175 (3d Cir. 2007) (collective responsibility rationale recognized in other circuits)
Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1992) (concerns about using shared-area contraband as evidence)