Shuck v. Bledsoe

4 Citing cases

  1. Cody v. Janson

    9:23-cv-01516-JDA (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2024)

    See Leist v. Carter, No. BAH-23-479, 2024 WL 69583, at *4 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2024) (“Due process does not guarantee a prisoner the right to have prison officials comb the institution for unidentified witnesses.”); Shuck v. Bledsoe, No. 7:05-CV-00167, 2005 WL 1862666, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2005) (“Prison officials are not required to exhaust all possible avenues of locating the witness suggested by [an] inmate.”)

  2. Leist v. Carter

    Civil Action BAH-23-479 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Shuck v. Bledsoe, No. 7:05-CV-00167, 2005 WL 1862666, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2005), report and recommendation adopted, 2005 WL 2675090 (W.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2005). Due process does not guarantee a prisoner the right to have prison officials comb the institution for unidentified witnesses.

  3. Wagner v. Iames

    Civil Action No. ELH-16-98 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Indeed, "[d]eference to prison administrators may mean upholding a denial of a request even in situations [in which] the 'denied witness might have provided testimony to exculpate [the inmate],' or where the reviewing court might have ruled differently had it been conducting the hearing." Shuck v. Bledsoe, 2005 WL 1862666, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2005) (quoting Afrika v. Selsky, 750 F. Supp. 595, 601 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (emphasis in Afrika)).

  4. King-Fields v. Leggett

    Civil Action No. ELH-11-1491 (D. Md. Feb. 19, 2014)   Cited 12 times

    " Indeed, "[d]eference to prison administrators may mean upholding a denial of a request even in situations [in which] the 'denied witness might have provided testimony to exculpate [the inmate],' or where the reviewing court might have ruled differently had it been conducting the hearing." Shuck v. Bledsoe, 2005 WL 1862666, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2005) (quoting Afrika v. Selsky, 750 F. Supp. 595, 601 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (emphasis in Afrika)). Nevertheless, the Ponte Court expressly rejected an approach that would "place the burden of proof on the inmate to show why the action of the prison officials in refusing to call witnesses was arbitrary or capricious."