DAVID STARR WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
RODERICK JAMES, 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.
David Williams appeals the denial of habeas corpus challenging loss of gain time due to a disciplinary report. The court agrees that Williams was denied due process because the Department of Corrections failed to produce a requested witness or explain on the record why the witness was not called, violating both federal constitutional requirements and Florida administrative rules.
Yes. The DOC violated Williams' due process rights. Although prison officials are not absolutely required to produce inmate witnesses, they must explain their reasons for denying such requests, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-22.007(c) requires that notations be made in the report documenting reasons for declining to call requested witnesses.
[1] Prison inmates have a limited constitutional right to call witnesses in disciplinary hearings when threatened with loss of gain time.
[2] Prison officials must provide a reason for denying an inmate's request to call a witness at a disciplinary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although an inmate does not have an absolute right to have witnesses present at his hearing, prison officials must explain their reasons for denying an inmate's request to call witnesses.”
Establishes the core holding that while discretion exists, it must be accompanied by documented explanations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams received a disciplinary report resulting in loss of gain time. At the disciplinary hearing, Williams requested that inmate Wageman be called …
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 Due Process Rights Of Inmates cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
David Williams appeals from .the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the loss of gain time as a result of a disciplinary report. He argues that he was denied due process rights at his disciplinary hearing because the Department of Corrections (DOC) failed either to produce a requested witness in person or to note on the record the reason for declining to call the witness. We agree and reverse. However, as a procedural matter, since Williams did not allege that he would be entitled to immediate release but for the loss of the gain time, we treat Williams’ petition for habeas corpus as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (writ of mandamus is proper remedy to review denial of gain time). A writ of mandamus is the means by which a clear legal right is enforced and, although it cannot be used to compel a public agency to exercise its discretionary powers in a given manner, it may be used to compel the agency to follow its own rules. Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court held that inmates facing disciplinary charges must be afforded certain minimal procedural safeguards. Relevant to this ease is the right to present witnesses and documentary evidence. Although an inmate does not have an absolute right to have witnesses present at his hearing, prison officials must explain their reasons for denying an inmate’s request to call witnesses. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 105 S.Ct. 2192, 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985); Department of Corrections v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-22.007(c)1 states:
Witnesses shall not be called or certain information disclosed if doing so would create a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the seeurity or order of the institution. The inmate witnesses must be willing to testify but may offer an oral or written statement to the investigating officer in lieu of a personal appearance. Notations shall be made in the report with reasons for declining to call requested witnesses or for restricting any information.
In this case, nothing in the record indicates the prison official’s reasons for denying Williams’ request to produce inmate Wagen-man in person. There is no transcript of the hearing or notation in the record documenting the reason for relying on the witness’s statement alone.
In Marshall, the First District noted: [Although under the holding in Ponte v. Real, the Department is not obligated to make its reasons for declining to call an inmate’s witnesses part of the administrative record at the disciplinary hearing, the Department has nonetheless assumed that obligation by including it in its rule [Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-22.007(2)(c) ].
618 So. 2d at 779.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The DOC may either expunge Williams’ disciplinary report and restore his gain time or it may conduct another disciplinary hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . This rule was repealed on October 1, 1995.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…hat the circuit court petition was apparently filed within 30 days of denial of Green’s last administrative grievance. As an initial matter, we note that Green’s selection of mandamus as his circuit court remedy was correct. See Williams v. James, 684 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The conversion of the petition from mandamus to certiorari was therefore unnecessary. This error had no bearing on these proceedings, however, as both remedies are subject to a 30 day jurisdictional time limit. See Fla.R.App.P. 9…
-
Waters v. Dept. OF Corrections, 144 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…. “‘[Although [a writ of mandamus] cannot be used to compel a public agency to exercise its discretionary powers in a given manner, it may be used to compel the agency to follow its own rules.’ ” Rivera, 825 So. 2d at 506 (quoting Williams v. James, 684 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)). This includes ensuring the Department complies with inmate grievance rules. Id. In Crews v. Matara, 123 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), this court reviewed the history of the prison mailbox rule in Florida: In Houston v.…
-
Rivera v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ther remedies available to appellant. “[A]lthough [a writ of mandamus] cannot be used to compel a public agency to exercise its discretionary powers in a given manner, it may be used to compel the agency to follow its own rules.” Williams v. James, 684 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On the record before us, the trial court should have issued a writ of mandamus directing appellee to ensure that the Department complies with rule 33-29.015(3). Accordingly, we reverse and remand. On remand, we direct the tr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1985)
- Holcomb v. Dep't OF Corr., 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Hogan v. Ardc Corp., 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sherrill Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Turnberry Assocs., Inc. v. Cardinal Pierre & The Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)