Nicholas Lennear v. Eric Wilson
937 F.3d 257
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Nicholas Lennear, a federal inmate, was disciplined after a June 11, 2016 incident in which a case manager reported he approached staff, made incendiary comments, and incited other inmates; he lost 27 days of good-time credits plus segregation and other penalties.
- Lennear alleged at multiple stages (investigation, Unit Discipline Committee, hearing, and on administrative appeal) that he requested review of prison video surveillance that would corroborate his version; prison officials did not review or provide the video.
- The Regional Director denied his administrative appeal as untimely and the Central Office failed to respond; Lennear filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing Wolff due-process violations for denial of documentary evidence.
- The district court adopted a magistrate’s report, denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and held Lennear’s request was untimely and any error was harmless because there was “some evidence.”
- The Fourth Circuit held that video surveillance is a form of "documentary evidence" under Wolff and recognized qualified rights (1) to access such video and (2) to compel its official review unless the government shows an individualized penological justification.
- Because key factual questions (whether the video existed and whether Lennear timely requested it) were unresolved and the government offered no penological justification, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wolff’s qualified right to present documentary evidence include prison video surveillance? | Lennear: video is documentary evidence and thus covered. | Warden initially conceded but argued scope limited to "present," not access. | Yes — video is documentary evidence under Wolff; inmates have a qualified right to it. |
| Do inmates have a qualified right of access to video (to obtain it)? | Lennear: must have means to obtain evidence needed to marshal a defense. | Government: Wolff speaks only of "presenting" evidence, not a right of access. | Right of access recognized, subject to individualized safety/correctional limitations; burden on prison to justify denial. |
| Do inmates have a qualified right to compel official review of video (by hearing officer)? | Lennear: hearing officer must review requested video unless penological reasons prevent it. | Government: reviewing is discretionary; timeliness and materiality limit claims. | Right to have hearing officer review recognized, again qualified and subject to individualized penological justification; relevance determinations must be by disinterested hearing officer. |
| Was denial harmless or untimely such that no relief is warranted? | Lennear: his sworn affidavit shows timely requests; absence of government rebuttal requires evidentiary hearing; harm cannot be assessed without viewing video. | Government/district court: request was untimely; even if denied, error was harmless because there was "some evidence" supporting discipline. | District court erred: timeliness and existence of video are factual issues requiring a hearing; harmlessness must be assessed by whether video could have aided defense (not the "some evidence" test). Case vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (establishes due-process protections in prison disciplinary hearings, including right to present documentary evidence)
- Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985) (prison officials may explain refusals later; rejects blanket bans on witnesses)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary revocations)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (procedural due-process requirements from Wolff are distinct from Hill’s evidentiary sufficiency test)
- Burns v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 642 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2011) (video is documentary evidence and refusal to allow review can violate due process)
- Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 2007) (refusal to produce/review videotape violated inmate’s procedural due-process right)