Johnson v. Brown, 681 F. App'x 494

Byron Johnson, an inmate at Pendleton, was found guilty of attempting to traffic contraband and lost 149 days' good-time credit, was demoted in credit class, placed in disciplinary segregation 180 days, and lost phone privileges 45 days.
Guard Steven Hall reported a 9:00 a.m. conversation on July 30, 2015, at the E Unit officers' desk; Johnson denied being there and requested video from the E unit camera for 9:00 a.m.
A lieutenant reviewed a digital file, checked a prison form denying Johnson access to view the video on boilerplate security grounds, and summarized seeing a black inmate at 8:53 a.m. but could not positively identify the person; the hearing officer never viewed the video and relied on "staff reports."
Johnson repeatedly appealed, arguing the video would exculpate him (he insisted he is light-skinned/mixed and that the recorded inmate appeared black); appeals and later the district court denied relief. The state later told the court the video "no longer exists."
The Seventh Circuit found that Johnson was denied due process because he was effectively prevented from using potentially exculpatory video evidence, and the prison provided no case-specific security justification or meaningful explanation for withholding or destroying the file.
Remedy ordered: remand to determine whether the video still exists; if it does, disclose it and provide a Wolff-compliant hearing; if it does not, restore Johnson’s good-time credits and credit class.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of access to video deprived Johnson of due process	Denial prevented effective use of potentially exculpatory evidence and preparation of defense	Video irrelevant because lieutenant could not identify the subject and video is gone	Court: Due process violated; video central and deprivation unexplained; remand ordered
Whether boilerplate security checkbox suffices to withhold evidence	Checkbox is inadequate; must show case-specific security risk	Prison relied on preprinted form checked by lieutenant asserting disclosure would jeopardize security	Court: Boilerplate is insufficient; must provide case-by-case justification
Whether court must conduct in camera review when evidence withheld or destroyed	If withheld, in camera review required to determine exculpatory nature	State said video no longer exists so review impossible	Court: District court must first determine existence; if exists, disclosure or in camera review; if erased, restore credits
Whether loss/destruction of requested video without justification requires relief	Loss deprived Johnson of ability to seek timely review; equitable relief required	State offered no explanation for deletion; asserted file gone	Court: If video destroyed after inmate requested it, credits must be restored

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (constitutional due process protections for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003) (inmates entitled to view exculpatory evidence; limits on nondisclosure)
Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2002) (prison must justify withholding evidence; destroyed evidence remedy)
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2007) (liberty interest in good-time credit requires due process)
Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2016) (hearing officer must consider inmate’s evidence despite other evidence of guilt)
Whitlock v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 1998) (summaries inadequate when live evidence feasible)
Donelson v. Pfister, 811 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2016) (prison may limit access on security grounds but must justify)
Campbell v. Henman, 931 F.2d 1212 (7th Cir. 1991) (in camera review required when evidence withheld)
Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1992) (case-by-case determination required before denying witnesses/evidence)
Hayes v. Walker, 555 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1977) (broad conclusory security assertions inadequate)