Foley v. Haney
345 S.W.3d 861
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Foley, an inmate, was charged with actions resulting in serious physical injury to another inmate; he claimed he was not present, being in the medical unit or cafeteria at the relevant time.
- Foley requested medical unit and cafeteria records to prove his absence; it is unclear whether he received those records.
- An October 20, 2009 disciplinary hearing relied on confidential information; the hearing officer would not disclose the basis for the informant's reliability.
- The hearing officer found Foley guilty and recommended restitution, 180 days of disciplinary segregation, and loss of 730 days of good-time credit.
- Foley appealed to the warden, who affirmed the decision; Foley then filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court.
- The circuit court denied Foley’s petition, citing Wolff v. McDonnell and Hill v. Hill, concluding due process requirements were met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of confidential informant not explained | Foley | Hane y/Kentucky officials | Due process defect; failure to state reasons for reliability requires remand |
| Failure to review Foley's requested records | Foley | Appellees | Remand to address whether records were reviewed or explain why not |
| Independent determination of informant reliability | Foley | Appellees | Court must require independent reliability determination or explain jeopardy to informant |
| Adequacy of written statement of evidence and reasons | Foley | Appellees | Written statement must include reasons for reliability; current record deficient |
| Remedy and scope of remand | Foley | Appellees | Remand to provide reasons or indicate jeopardy; ensure Foley access to records |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings; written statement of evidence and reasons required)
- Hill v. Walpole, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings; limits on loss of good-time credits)
- Gilhaus v. Wilson, 734 S.W.2d 808 (Ky.App. 1987) (confidential informants require reliability determination)
- Goble v. Wilson, 577 F. Supp. 219 (W.D. Ky. 1983) (confidential informant reliability required in disciplinary actions)
- Hensley v. Wilson, 850 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1988) (no independent determination of informant reliability equals mere recordkeeping)
- Smith v. O'Dea, 939 S.W.2d 353 (Ky.App. 1997) (standard of review for prison disciplinary decisions)