Ramirez v. Nietzel, 2014 Ky. LEXIS 91

Ramirez, an inmate at Northpoint, was charged in a disciplinary hearing with participating in a fight that caused serious injury and was found guilty by an Adjustment Officer (AO).
Penalties: 180 days solitary, forfeiture of two years’ non-restorable good-time credit, and $556.17 restitution.
At the hearing Ramirez requested two witnesses (one testified by phone corroborating his alibi) and sought to introduce surveillance-camera footage; the AO permitted the phone witness but refused the victim’s testimony and refused to view/disclose the video, citing "institutional safety."
Ramirez exhausted administrative appeals, filed a declaratory rights action in circuit court challenging due-process violations; the circuit court and Court of Appeals denied relief.
The Supreme Court (Chief Justice Minton) reversed, holding the AO’s procedures failed to meet minimal due-process requirements and remanded for in-camera review and further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AO must provide reasons for denying a requested witness	Ramirez: AO should have allowed victim’s sworn statement or at least given a substantive reason; bare "institutional safety" is insufficient	AO/Northpoint: Denial based on institutional safety is permissible and need not be detailed contemporaneously	AO need not state reasons contemporaneously or to the inmate, but must provide a sufficiently detailed, reviewable reason on the record (can be in camera/sealed) if the inmate later challenges the denial
Whether AO must review surveillance footage requested by inmate	Ramirez: AO should have reviewed the security footage (or admitted it) because it could be exculpatory	AO/Northpoint: Viewing or disclosing footage raises security concerns and can be refused for safety reasons	AO must review requested security footage (may do so in camera); inmate has no absolute right to view tape, but AO must articulate a justification for denying inmate access that is "logically related" to institutional safety or correctional goals

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (establishes minimum procedural protections for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985) (permits prison officials to limit witnesses/evidence where necessary for institutional safety but requires reasons be related to safety/goals)
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard suffices for review of prison disciplinary findings)
Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2002) (recognizes denial of documentary evidence, including video, can violate due process)
Hensley v. Wilson, 850 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1988) (discusses limits on disclosure of reasons to inmates while allowing judicial review)
Gaither v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2000) (supports in-camera review of security-sensitive evidence)