Dale Holt v. Paul Caspari Major J.P. Smith
923 F.2d 103
8th Cir.
1991
Check Treatment

*1 GIBSON, Bеfore JOHN R. Circuit HEANEY, Judge; Judge; Senior Circuit PAGG, Judge. HEANEY, Judge. Senior Circuit Holt, inmate, appeals Dale a Missouri dismissal, prior from the district court’s process, service of of his U.S.C. 1983 § alleging prison officials violated his ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍proceed- process rights disciplinary ings. We reverse beсause we believe stated a claim sufficient to require an answer from the defendants. I. BACKGROUND Report, The Conduct Violation attached complaint, to Holt’s indicates that Holt pieces found with several of broken tablets *2 Report marked “Valium.” The chаrged Holt also he claimed asked for the result of Holt with violation of “Rule laboratory analysis pills, the of the but Contraband; # making, transferring, yet him Smith informed the results had not 24— ¶ having possession any or prison. of unauthorized been furnished to the 10. He Id. given Report, provide article or substance.” The to claimed the him refusal to with the violation, reports against Holt as his notice of stated the substance of the to be used pills analysis deprived impartial had been and him submitted for him of a fair and analysis, pills, along that after with all hеaring opportunity the and the to controvert documentation, him, pertinent allegations against be avail- would the and that the adjustment to the served as any laboratory able board that board did not have results disciplinary hearing pills the committee. to confirm the in fact were Valium. ¶¶ 11, upgrad- Id. 20. He also claimed the On,” “Findings The and Relied Evidence ing of the violation from Rule 24 to Rule 3 Report on the back of the states: effectively denied him his to notice of presence 5-18-89 in of counsel substi- prepare the in order his to defense. Czajka, tute requested John who the re- 14, 21. Id. Ml Czajka sult of the lab test. Mr. was Caspari’s Holt further claimed that fail- advised that the lab results were still supervise ure train and subordinates re- pending. [Subject] was advised of his in Caspari sulted Smith’s actions and that rights, Mirandа and elected not to make proper upon failed to take remedial action a statement. Board finds that the con- learning allegedly improper of Holt’s disci- pills clearly traband marked Vali- ¶ plinary hearing. He Id. 16. also claimed um, a which is controlled substance and Caspari “intentionally, and Smith acted person would lead a reasonable to believe faith, wantonly, punitive pur- in bad with they pose The were Valium. could a mind, poses disregard and in total institutions, security threat to the ¶ plaintiff’s rights.” sought 19. He Id. they or could be consumed trafficked relief, declaratory injunctive expunc- throughout the institution. The board violation, compensatory the conduct tion of that recommends the CV be ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍elevated to $100,000, damages punitive of dam- dangerous Rule # 3 cоntraband. ages. Id. Part X. Findings The also state that Holt was magistrate concluded that Holt had guilty “by report found virtue of the that process received the due under [subject] possession was in of what is con- Wolff McDonnell, (Valium dangerous sidered contraband (1974), requiring L.Ed.2d 935 advance no- pills).” Rule is minor violation and violation, opportunity tice of the an to be 3, major violation. The Rule sanctions heard, and written statement of the evi- violating substantially Rule 3 are more magistrate dence relied on. The found that and include extension of the condi- severe by adjustment the statements the board date, credit, good time tional release loss of sufficient, Findings the and Evidence were transfer, prosecu- and referral for criminal finding supported by guilt of was tion, which are not available fоr violation evidence, Holt’s claim of not some and that in his that Rule 24. Holt stated receiving documentary evidence was thus recommended for all of these sanc- he was magistrate found the claim frivolous. The Complaint tions. TF15. in the rule violated regarding chаnge the brought his section 1983 action Holt The district court ac- also frivolous. superintendent the against Caspari, Paul findings and cepted magistrate’s dis- Smith, chairman of the prison, and J.P. under 28 U.S.C. missed board, in their official and indi- adjustment 1915(d). § capacities. depriva- Holt claimed a vidual hearing argues in that at the that the refusal process appeal, tion of due On provide him of the “docu- him with evidence refused advise Smith use, evidence, thereof, the refusal to disclose mentary or substance the board would any existing doсumentary adjustment use as which the board would the substance ¶ evidence, laboratory report, the lack of a against Complaint him.” give adequate (8th Cir.1988). However, by the failure to notice we believe Holt’s during violation the delibera- that he upgrading sought process him, rights. against tion violated his Brief evidence the board would use argues also evi- refused to at 6. He “some Smith advise him of it or its Hill, Superintendent substance, kept rule of and that dence” refusal *3 445, 2768, adequately preparing defense, 105 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d may U.S. 86 356 from a (1985), imply is distinct from fаilure be read to the existence of exculpato- his claim of Moreover, ry give objections the evidence. his to disclose evidence and failure to to magistrate’s report, the adequate notice. stated his complaint deprived alleged defendants II. DISCUSSION process by of due failure ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍“their to disclose produce and certain evidence defendants 1915(d), complaint Under a section possessed.” manner, Construed in this may be if it lacks an dismissed frivolous complaint lack arguable Holt’s doеs not an arguable basis either law or fact. basis in law and the factual do Williams, 319, 109 Neitzke v. 490 U.S. facially not describe a “fantastic or delu- 1831, (1989). 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 S.Ct. Neitzke, sional scenario.” See 109 S.Ct. at complaints liberally Pro se must be con 1833. Thus it was error to dismiss the only if and dismissal is warranted strued complaint as frivolous. insuper an complaint the face of the shows Kerner, 404 able bar to relief. Haines v. legal We also a exists for believe basis 520-21, 594, 595-96, 519, 30 92 S.Ct. U.S. process Holt’s claim that he was denied due v. (1972) curiam); Munz (per L.Ed.2d 652 by change. proce- the rule ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍fоund Wolff Cir.1985). Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, (8th 1258 informing prisoner dures which included standards, claims should By these by orally charges, followed further as frivolous under not have been dismissed investigation may reshape the na- “which 1915(d). section charges” ture the at the time of the hearing, inadequate provide рrisoner to the charged discipli with a Prisoners prior charges.” notice of the “actual with right of reasonable nary violation have 564, Wolff, 418 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. at 2979. necessary put to on a access to information Thus, charges” notice of the “actual must Gunter, 364, Meis v. F.2d 906 defеnse. go beyond a recitation of the conduct and Cir.1990). (8th right is circum 367 specification rule the include a of which penological by legitimate considera scribed Brewer, v. conduct violates. See Rinehart 564-66, Wolff, 418 at 94 S.Ct. tions. U.S. 165, 1980) (no- (S.D.Iowa F.Supp. 169 483 (officials limit havе discretion to at 2978-80 description must contain of incident tice Smith protect legitimate goals); access to violated). citation to rule Rabalais, 539, (5th F.2d 543 Cir. 659 to 1981) (right of access to information not has held that does This court Wolff cert. unqualified), specify not thе prepare require a defense the notice to whether denied, or minor.” Jensen 71 infraction was “serious Dahm, Satran, (8th Cir.1981). Harrison v. (1982); L.Ed.2d 853 651 F.2d cf. (8th Cir.1990) (no Jensen, however, to prisoner F.2d was In drug included in written guilty violating have test results the same rule he found with, Holt, charges). unlike “did not chаrged notice of was clearly made argue was not that whether Holt A threshold issue is to him.” Id. known sufficiently alleged the existence of has deprived process of due in his Holt was Nowhere As evidence. re- inadequate notice and a of an specifiсally ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍he state because complaint does actually allow him access to avail fusal to documentary evidence evidence, of “some evidence” required not the existence court is able. A district notification to Holt of exist in order to and the board’s “pretend certain facts on, ultimately relied which would recovery actually not theory of foresee a requirement, correct- plead satisfy third [implied] by the reasonably raised or Wolff’s Willits, These facts affect deprivation. ed the 853 F.2d er." Williams v. Holt, remedy available and Holt is not which would person lead a reasonable damages, expunction, they entitled to and rein believe were Valium. A reasonable time, person would good statement of but other further believe forms posed security relief threat are still available. to the of the institu- Graham v. Cf. (8th because they tion could be consumed Baughman, 772 F.2d 446-47 or Cir. 1985) (no throughout trafficked compensatory the institution. The damages because findings further referred to the process classificа- actually violation did not cause possible tion committee for classification deprivation, but remanded for nominal upon receipt of the lab results. It is costs, fees). damages, attorney apparent that discipline was adminis- Assuming states a doсuments, tered based on these which claim, against Caspari may the claim be provided to Holt. The attachment-of *4 interpreted theory respon based on of this directly evidence contra- superior, deat support which will not allegation. magistrаte dicts Holt’s The re- Canton, City section 1983 action. See of lied on these in finding documents Harris, 378, Ohio v. 109 S.Ct. allegations Holt’s were frivolous. 1197, 1203, (1989). 103 L.Ed.2d 412 We today recognizes The court that the com- Caspari, against read Holt’s claims how plaint specifically does not stаte that docu- ever, Caspari’s merely as based not on role mentary actually evidence was available. supervisor, Caspari’s as a own inac but on It reasoned that the that Holt’s Smith, tion. 855 F.2d See Lewis request for re- evidence was (11th Cir.1988)(claim 738 not based on the kept fused and that such refusal from ory respondeat superior supervisor of adequately preparing “may a defense be failing correct in liable violation disci imply exculpatory read to the existence of plinary procеeding). Caspari will thus be evidence.” At 105. Under the state of the any if liable failure to take action amount us, court, record I before believe ed to deliberate indifference or a tacit au contrary protestation, adopts to its a “fan- process. thorization of a violative See Neitzke, tastic or delusional scenario.” 109 Norris, (8th F.2d Fruit v. 1151 doing. S.Ct. at and that it errs in so Cir.1990). response We called for a from the state III. CONCLUSION appealed after this case was to this court. response The demonstrates thаt after the We reverse the district court’s order dis- action, adjustment board assistant su- missing complaint and remand this Holt’s perintendent made further recommenda- pro- case to the district court for further findings guilt tions on the basis of the of ceedings opinion. consistеnt with this board, and that referral to the classifi- GIBSON, Judge, depend upon cation need not JOHN R. committee lab only specific allegation The in dissenting. results. complaint Holt’s has to do with failure to appellant alleges While that he was furnish the lab results. disciplined оnly request after his for docu- provided by Further materials the state mentary laboratory reports evidence and laboratory that after denied, reveal results con- I complaint believe that Valium, in firmed that the tablets were fact provided filed demоnstrates that he was prosecuting the case was referred to au- The such information. conduct violation (State’s 11-12). App. thorities at Holt then report complaint. is attached to the The guilty plea charge posses- entered a to a of thе is that when Holt’s essence sion of controlled substance a correc- open, hand was forced several broken institution, felony, tional a class C and was pieces of blue tablets marked with the years imprisonment. sentenced to two The “Valium” werе recovered. Because word April gave incident of rise to both the physician never issues Va- the institutional disciplinary charge charge. and the criminal residents, posses- any lium to Holt was adjustment concluding sion of contraband. The board I have no hеsitation in clear- found that the contraband with the attached materi- Valium, substance, support als contained some ly marked a controlled board, disciplinary prison decision process require- satisfying the due

thus Hill, 472 U.S. Superintendent

ments 2768, 2774, L.Ed.2d (1985). today eyes to the

The court closes its case remanding record in this

reality of the court.

to the district

ORDER

March rehearing by petition

Appellees' for re- suggestion

panel granted. is denied.

hearing en banc is hereby appointed is

Mr. H. Kent Munson appellant under the inher- represent *5 supplemental the court. A power of

ent is established as follows:

briefing schedule appellant Brief for due

Supplemental

April 1991. appellees Brief for due

Supplemental

1,May 1991. Brief, necessary, May

Reply if

1991. JOHNSON, Eugene Appellant,

Blaine Bartlett, Mo., City, for George Jeffеrson appellant. ARMONTROUT, Appellee. William Cone, Louis, Mo., appel- R. St. for Jared No. 90-1535. lee. Appeals, States Court United Eighth BOWMAN, Circuit. Before McMILLIAN HARRIS,1 Judges, Senior Dec. 1990. Submitted Judge. District Jan. 1991. Decided HARRIS, Judge. Senior District OREN the District appeals Blaine Johnson petition оf his for a writ denial Court’s corpus. We affirm. habeas convicted Johnson was On June stealing rape from by jury of forcible to consecutive person. He was sentenced Oliver, HARRIS, United John W. Senior The Honorable Senior OREN 1. The HONORABLE Judge Judge the Eastern and the Western District of District United States District States Arkansas, sitting by desig- Western Districts Missouri. nation.