Glenn C. Smith vs Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
432 F. App'x 843
11th Cir.2011Background
- Glenn C. Smith, a Florida state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2241 petition challenging three disciplinary reports from December 2003 and January 2004 that resulted in loss of gain time.
- Smith asserted due process violations: (a) the written disciplinary decisions did not explain why unsworn officer statements were more credible than Smith’s testimony, and (b) the January 2004 decision did not allege that his actions affected prison security or order.
- A magistrate judge consolidated Smith’s sixteen grounds into five issues and concluded the unsworn statements constituted some evidence supporting the discipline, and that witnesses or additional evidence would not overcome safety concerns.
- The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and denied the petition; a COA was sought and initially denied, but a COA was granted on one issue regarding Clisby v. Jones.
- This court affirmed, holding the district court complied with Clisby by addressing all claims, and that the discipline was supported by some evidence and did not require weighing credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary actions? | Smith argues the unsworn statements were improperly relied on. | Smith did not show the absence of any evidence; some evidence suffices. | Yes; some evidence supported the decisions. |
| Did the disciplinary process improperly deny the right to present witnesses and evidence? | Smith contends witnesses and evidence should have been allowed. | Safety and security concerns justified limiting evidence. | District court correctly limited evidentiary presentation consistent with due process. |
| Did the written statements explain why officers’ statements were more credible than Smith’s? | Smith claimed lack of credibility justification violated due process. | Some explanation is not required beyond what the record shows under due process. | Not required; the decision satisfied due process when supported by some evidence. |
| Did the January 2004 decision properly allege impact on prison security and order? | Claim that disciplinary charge lacked necessary security/order nexus. | Disciplinary action can stand with evidence of disruption present in record. | District court properly addressed the nexus issue; no error found. |
| Did the district court need to address all claims raised under Clisby v. Jones? | Clisby requires addressing all habeas claims. | Court complied with Clisby by resolving the claims presented. | Yes; the district court complied with Clisby and did not need remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (district court must resolve all habeas claims or remand)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in prison disciplinary cases; written statement and witness opportunity)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (disciplinary decisions must be supported by some evidence)
- Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2009) (application of constitutional standards to habeas petitions)
- Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (habeas corpus standards and § 2254/§ 2241 framework)