DOUGLAS LAVEREN ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida prisoner challenged disciplinary hearing proceedings that resulted in 120 days of gain time loss. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding the prisoner entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claims that he was denied the constitutional right to call witnesses at three of four disciplinary hearings.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Adams was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims regarding the denial of witnesses at the second, third, and fourth hearings, and on his claim regarding alleged violations of state administrative rules concerning the selection of disciplinary team members.
[1] A prisoner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claims that he was denied the constitutional right to call witnesses at prison disciplinary hearings where loss of gai…
[2] Prison inmates have a limited constitutional right to call witnesses in disciplinary hearings when threatened with loss of gain time.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), and Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491,105 S.Ct. 2192, 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985), inmates have a limited constitutional right to call witnesses in disciplinary hearings where they are threatened with loss of gain time.”
Establishes the constitutional standard protecting prisoner rights in disciplinary hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDouglas Adams, a prisoner in the Florida Department of Corrections, was cited for rule infractions on four separate occasions and received disciplinar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Call Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. Because we believe appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims, we reverse.
Appellant is a prisoner incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections. On four separate occasions he was cited for various rule infractions and, after hearings before prison disciplinary teams, suffered gain time losses totalling 120 days. Appellant exhausted his administrative remedies and filed a petition for habeas corpus in circuit court. The trial judge correctly perceived' appellant’s petition to be one for habeas corpus or mandamus, and we will also consider it as such.
The trial court was correct in dismissing appellant’s claim that a disciplinary hearing was not held in a timely fashion. The record reveals that it was. Similarly, the judge correctly dismissed the claim that appellant was not allowed to call witnesses at the first hearing, as appellant did not allege that he tried to call any witnesses. The trial court also properly dismissed the allegation that the teams’ factual findings of guilt were insufficiently specific to meet the standard set out in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Under Brown v. Frey, 807 F. 2d 1407 (8th Cir.1986), the findings were clearly enough to satisfy federal constitutional standards.
However, it was error to deny appellant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he was not allowed to call witnesses at the second, third, and fourth hearings, and that a “blanket ban” on witnesses existed generally. Under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), and Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491,105 S.Ct. 2192, 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985), inmates have a limited constitutional right to call witnesses in disciplinary hearings where they are threatened with loss of gain time. Appellant properly documented his claim with affidavits setting out specific facts, which, if true, would constitute violations of Wolff and Ponte. Appellant also submitted affidavits from three other inmates which made similar specific factual allegations. Accordingly, he was entitled to a hearing. Moore v. Wainwright, 366 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). This is true despite appellant’s failure to allege that restoration of his gain time would entitle him to immediate release or new trial, generally a prerequisite to consideration of a habeas corpus petition. Brown v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because permitting an inmate the limited right to call witnesses is a mandatory prison official duty under the United States Constitution, a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy. Shannon v. Mitchell, 460 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), reversed on other grounds, 491 So. 2d 275 (Fla.1986). Consequently, the restraints applicable to habeas corpus do not apply sub judice.
Appellant also stated a prima facie claim that officials violated state administrative rules when they failed to select disciplinary teams from a list of approved personnel trained in disciplinary techniques. However, the trial court was technically correct in dismissing the issue as appellant named the Secretary of the Department of Corrections in his petition, while Sections 944.09(2) and 944.14, Florida Statutes, charge the prison superintendent with enforcement of the rules.
Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this issue with prejudice. Upon remand, the court may permit appellant to amend his petition to name the proper respondent, or appellant may file a corrected petition. Smith v. State, 273 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Dickey v. Circuit Court, Gadsden County, Quincy, Florida, 200 So. 2d 521, 529 (Fla.1967); City of Eau Gallie v. State, 125 Fla. 277, 169 So. 730, 731 (1936).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
BOOTH, WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holcomb v. Dep't OF Corr., 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…court finds the allegations insufficient, it will deny the petition, see, e.g., Gibson v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 450 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), or dismiss those claims that are factually insufficient, see, e.g., Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA1987). However, if the petition is facially sufficient, the court must issue an alternative writ, i.e., an order directed to the respondent to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc…1 / 2
-
Woullard v. Bishop, 734 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…seeking review of a prison disciplinary proceeding allegedly conducted in violation of constitutional requirements or the rules of the Department of Corrections. See, e.g., Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Of course, the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a necessary prerequisite to seeking judicial review, but contrary to the circuit court’s determination, we conclude that the allegations of Woullard’s petition were suffici…
-
Jones v. Kirkland, 696 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…call witnesses and present document evidence at the disciplinary hearing unless calling the witness may “create a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security of the institution.” See also Adams v. Wainwright, 512 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Thus, the question before the trial court was whether a reasonable official could have believed the denial of appellant’s requests was lawful. The Eleventh Circuit has stated that the trial court “examines the complaint to’ see…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985)
- Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1985)
- Dickey v. Cir. Court, 200 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1967)
- Brown v. Frey, 807 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir. 1986)
- Alton D. Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Moore v. Louie L. Wainwright, 366 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Shannon v. Anabel P. Mitchell, 460 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- City of Eau Gallie v. State, 125 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1936)
- Parole & Prob. Comm'n v. Fuller, 491 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1986)