White v. Boards-Bey, 426 S.W.3d 569

Boards-Bey, an inmate at NTC, was accused of participating in a riot on August 21, 2009 and a disciplinary write-up was prepared based on Lt. Phillips' account.
Sgt. Ellis took over the investigation at GRCC; Boards-Bey denied the charge and sought to have three witnesses questioned, but Ellis did not interview them.
Boards-Bey was charged under CPP 15.2, Category VII, Item 4, and a hearing was conducted by ACO Lt. Billy Herrin on October 28, 2009 with no witnesses called by Boards-Bey.
The Hearing Disciplinary Report found Boards-Bey guilty and imposed 365 days of disciplinary segregation and 199 days of non-restorable good time loss; restitution was ordered.
Boards-Bey appealed to Warden White, who amended the charge and reduced the sentence to 180 days of disciplinary segregation while keeping the 199 days of good time loss.
Boards-Bey filed a Petition for Declaration of Rights in 2010; trial court dismissed; the Court of Appeals reversed; this Court granted discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Ellis' failure to interview witnesses violate Wolff's second due process requirement?	Boards-Bey argues the witnesses were improperly ignored, violating Wolff.	Appellants contend non-interview of witnesses did not automatically deny due process under Wolff.	No automatic Wolff violation; some flexibility in process found.
Did the ACO's handling of the hearing deprive Boards-Bey of the right to call witnesses and present evidence?	Boards-Bey claims his right to present defense was blocked by the ACO.	Appellants argue Wolff requirements were met; silence and rights were properly managed.	New disciplinary hearing required; initial hearing did not deprive minimum due process.
Did misstatement of Miranda rights taint the disciplinary process?	Boards-Bey relied on Miranda-like rights and was misinformed about counsel and silence.	Disciplinary proceedings do not confer Miranda protections; rights can be misleadingly described but not fatal to process.	Mistaken Miranda framing occurred; Boards-Bey entitled to a new hearing with Wolff-compliant rights.
Was there some evidence to support the ACO's guilt finding?	Sustained by the witness report from Thornberry and observed acts.	Some evidence standard satisfied by Thornberry's report; testimony need not be perfect.	There was some evidence to support guilt; standard satisfied.

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (set Wolff due-process framework for prison disciplinary hearings)
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (three Wolff due-process requirements; some evidence standard)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (due process requires flexible, situation-dependent process)
Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287 (6th Cir. 1980) (court rejected automatic per se denial based on regulatory violation)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) (no right to counsel in prison disciplinary proceedings; silence may be used)
Webb v. Sharp, 223 S.W.3d 113 (Ky. 2007) (Ky. due-process considerations in disciplinary hearings)
Commonwealth Health Corp. v. Croslin, 920 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1996) (exhaustion of administrative remedies; appellate consideration)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (constitutional rights and due-process framework)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for due process in deprivation of property interests)