Jones v. Cross, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7949

Jones, a federal prisoner, admitted to pushing a staff member during a 2006 incident and was disciplined with 14 days of loss of good time; UDC and DHO hearings followed, with multiple delays and documentary-evidence issues; Jones claimed denial of view of surveillance video and other evidence; Masvidal and St. Hilaire were potential witnesses not permitted; DHO relied on witness statements, videos, and admissions to find guilt; Jones challenged due process under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and sought habeas relief; district court denied, and Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The incident occurred in the open SHU area in which handcuffing occurred; surveillance video and witness testimony were central to the DHO decision; Jones argued noncompliance with notice and hearing timelines under 28 C.F.R. § 541.15 and related rules.
The DHO considered Cabrera’s eyewitness statement, video memoranda, and Green’s statement; Jones admitted pushing Loftus, with dispute over motive; medical reports and injury evidence were not emphasized in the written ruling.
The court proceeded under the due process framework requiring notice, opportunity to present evidence, and a written statement with some evidence standard; it held that delays and evidentiary access issues did not amount to constitutional violations.
Jones exhausted internal appeals; magistrate judge recommended denial of summary judgment; district court adopted the recommendation; Jones timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether delays violated due process and created liberty interest	Jones argues the delays violated 541.15(a)-(b) and created a liberty interest	Jones's delays not clearly creating a liberty interest; if any, harmless	Delays did not create a protected liberty interest; any error was harmless
Whether denial of access to surveillance video and other evidence violated due process	Jones contends lack of access hindered exculpatory defense	Exculpatory evidence not present; safety concerns justify non-disclosure	No due process violation; evidence was not exculpatory and non-disclosure justified by security concerns
Whether lack of specific-intent defense negated exculpatory/evidentiary claims	Jones defects rely on lack of intent as defense to assault	Lack of intent not a valid defense under § 224; entry of guilt proper	Lack of intent not a valid defense; admission insufficient for acquittal under § 224
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the DHO finding	Admits pushing Loftus; defense lacks impact on outcome	Some evidence adequate to support guilt	Some evidence supported the DHO finding; admission sufficient
Whether failure to view surveillance video constitutes a prejudicial error	Video viewing would alter defense; prejudice shown	Video viewing not required; no prejudice given other corroborating evidence	Harmless error; viewing video not required; no prejudice

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests arise only for atypical or significant hardships)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in disciplinary proceedings requires notice, opportunity, and written decision)
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2007) (some evidence standard; procedural due process in prison disciplinary hearings)
Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003) (Brady-like disclosure in prison discipline; security exceptions apply)
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000) (some evidence standard; standard of review for discipline)
Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (some evidence standard for prison disciplinary decisions)
Brooks-Bey v. Smith, 819 F.2d 178 (7th Cir. 1987) (due process in disciplinary proceedings)