Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-000234-MR
03-04-2016
JASUR MUHAYMIN APPELLANT v. DANIEL AKERS APPELLEE
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Jasur A. Muhaymin, Pro se Burgin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: C. Mike Moulton Elizabethtown, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DAN KELLY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-CI-00320 OPINION
AFFIRMING BEFORE: CLAYTON, DIXON, AND KRAMER, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: Jasur Muhaymin ("Appellant") appeals the Marion Circuit Court's dismissal of his declaratory judgment petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. We affirm.
On April 28, 2012, Appellant was an inmate at Marion Adjustment Center. Approximately thirty inmates were waiting in the "bullpen" area outside the door to the dormitory building. A corrections officer asked Appellant to show his inmate identification card, and Appellant refused. The situation escalated as Appellant became physically and verbally aggressive and ignored the officer's command to submit to being handcuffed. As Lieutenant Michael Johnson deployed OC chemical spray, Appellant smacked Lieutenant Johnson's hand to deflect the spray. Officers then tackled Appellant and handcuffed him. Appellant received a disciplinary write-up for physical action against an employee and pled not guilty to the charge. A hearing was held before the prison's disciplinary adjustment committee, and Appellant declined to be assisted by an inmate legal aide. Appellant made a statement on his own behalf, admitting that he refused to comply with the officer's requests and that he smacked Lieutenant Johnson's hand to deflect the spray. The committee found Appellant guilty of the charge and imposed punishment of 180 days in disciplinary segregation and loss of two years' good time credit. Appellant appealed the decision to the warden, who concurred with the committee.
Appellant filed a petition for declaration of rights in Marion Circuit Court, alleging he was denied due process during the disciplinary proceedings. The circuit court determined Appellant was not entitled to relief and dismissed the petition. This appeal followed.
A prison disciplinary hearing where an inmate's good time credit is at risk must comply with procedural due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). At minimum, the prisoner is entitled to written notice of the charges, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a report by the committee of its reasoning and conclusions. Id. at 564-66. On judicial review of a disciplinary action, "the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board." Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985). The Kentucky Supreme Court has held "that the 'some evidence' standard of review provides courts with a sufficient check upon adjustment committee fact-finding." Smith v. O'Dea, 939 S.W.2d 353, 358 (Ky. App. 1997).
In the case at bar, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending he was not provided any witness statements prior to the hearing. He also speculates that the disciplinary report was falsified and inaccurate. While we acknowledge Appellant's contentions, our review is concerned with whether there was "some evidence" supporting the committee's decision.
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was denied due process during the disciplinary proceeding, as 1) he had notice of the charges against him, 2) he had the opportunity to call witnesses; and 3) he received a written statement to support the committee's findings of guilt. It is clear that an investigation was conducted and that the committee properly relied on the disciplinary report and Appellant's own statements to find him guilty. The report indicates Appellant was non-compliant, aggressive, combative and that he struck Lieutenant Johnson's hand as he deployed OC spray. Further, Appellant admitted during the hearing that he smacked Lieutenant Johnson's hand to deflect the spray. After reviewing the record, we conclude there was sufficient evidence before the adjustment committee to support finding Appellant guilty of physical action against an employee. The disciplinary proceedings afforded Appellant the constitutional protections to which he was entitled; accordingly, the circuit court properly dismissed Appellant's petition.
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the Marion Circuit Court's order of dismissal.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Jasur A. Muhaymin, Pro se
Burgin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: C. Mike Moulton
Elizabethtown, Kentucky