Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (HC) Coker v. Doerer (caed, 2025-05-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Coker v. Doerer
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Cal. 2017) (finding “some evidence” standard met where weapon was 16 discovered on a window ledge in a room the petitioner shared with five inmates); Hamilton v. 17 O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding “some evidence” standard met where 18 weapons were found in a cell that housed the petitioner and three other inmates); Mason v. 19 Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding “some evidence” standard met where 20 contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates); Pettis v. Asuncion, 2017 WL 927626 , at 21 *6–7 (C.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parmeley v. Williams
S.D. Ill. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Giles v. Hanks, 72 F. App'x 432, 434 (7th Cir.2003) (Even where one inmate claims ownership of contraband, “two individuals may exercise joint possession.”); Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1992) (under constructive possession rule, inmate is responsible for whatever is found in his cell); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (contraband charge supported by some evidence when petitioner and another inmate shared a locker and the other inmate admitted placing the contraband in the locker).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Warden
N.D. Ind. · 2020 · confidence medium
Cf. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456-57 (1985) (disciplinary action supported when inmate was one of three seen fleeing from scene of assault even when victim denied fellow inmates had assaulted him); Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (discovery of weapon in area controlled by four inmates created twenty-five percent chance of guilt supporting disciplinary action); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (disciplinary action supported when contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McDaniels v. Warden
N.D. Ind. · 2020 · confidence medium
Cf. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-457 (disciplinary action supported when inmate was one of three seen fleeing from scene of assault even when victim denied fellow inmates had assaulted him); Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (discovery of weapon in area controlled by four inmates created twenty-five percent chance of guilt supporting disciplinary action); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (disciplinary action supported when contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Rodriguez v. On Habeas Corpus
E.D. Cal. · 2019 · confidence medium
Cal. 2017) (finding “some evidence” standard met 2 where weapon was discovered on a window ledge in a room the petitioner shared with five 3 inmates); Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding “some evidence” 4 standard met where weapons were found in a cell that housed the petitioner and three other 5 inmates); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding “some evidence” standard 6 met where contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates); Pettis v. Asuncion, 2017 WL 7 927626, at *6–7 (C.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victor Salazar, Jr. v. Bill Wilson
7th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
But a disciplinary hearing is not a criminal trial, see Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556 , and the level of evidence required to satisfy due process is much lower, see Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (concluding that “some evidence” supported disciplinary charge where conduct report showed that prisoner was one of four inmates with access to vent containing contraband weapons); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (concluding that “some evidence” supported disciplinary charge even though another inmate admitted placing contraband clothing in their shared loc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victor Salazar, Jr. v. Bill Wilson
7th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
But a disciplinary hearing is not a criminal trial, see Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , and the level of evidence required to satisfy due process is much lower, see Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir.1992) (concluding that “some evidence” supported disciplinary charge where conduct report showed that prisoner was one of four inmates with access to vent containing contraband weapons); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (concluding that “some evidence” supported disciplinary charge even though another inmate admit *603 ted placing contraband clothi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Villegas v. Terrell
8th Cir. · 2010 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (some evidence must support decision by prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits; relevant question is whether there is any evidence in record that could support conclusion reached by disciplinary board); Dible v. Scholl, 506 F.3d 1106, 1110 (8th Cir.2007) (in prisoner disciplinary proceeding, prisoner must receive advance written notice of charges, opportunity to call witnesses and present defense, and written statement of evidence relied upon by fact finder and reasons for disciplinary acti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victor Villegas v. Duke Terrell
8th Cir. · 2010 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985) (some evidence must support decision by prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits; relevant question is whether there is any evidence in record that could support conclusion reached by disciplinary board); Dible v. Scholl, 506 F.3d 1106, 1110 (8th Cir. 2007) (in prisoner disciplinary proceeding, prisoner must receive advance written notice of charges, opportunity to call witnesses and present defense, and written statement of evidence relied upon by fact finder and reasons for disciplinary action); cf. Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pigg, Steve v. Finnan, Alan
7th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 345 (7th Cir.1992); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 679-80 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Goord (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874 (5th Cir.2001) (escape tool found where inmate worked not reliable evidence of possession because 100 inmates had access to the same area); Hamilton, 976 F.2d at 345-46 (evidence was sufficient to satisfy “some evidence” standard where inmate was one of four with access to area where contraband was found, but noting in dictum that if inmate were one of thirty-two with access, evidence would have been insufficient); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (“some evidence” standard satisfied where two inmates shared the locker where contr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tweedy v. Vannatta (2×)
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 345-46 (7th Cir.1992) (finding “some evidence” of guilt where weapons found in cell); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (“some evidence” existed to support possession of contraband because it was found in inmate’s locker).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Giles v. Hanks
7th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
See id. (husband could be convicted of possessing a firearm when firearm allegedly owned by wife was found in their shared bedroom); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (some evidence existed to support possession of contraband charge against petitioner when he and another inmate shared a locker and other inmate admitted placing contraband in locker).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. Hawk
D. Kan. · 1997 · confidence medium
The court further cited Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-57 , 105 S.Ct. at 2774-75 , where three inmates were seen .fleeing from the scene of an assault and the one in three probability of misconduct was sufficient to apply the "constructive possession” rule; and Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990), where contraband found in a locker shared by two inmates produced a one in two probability of misconduct that was sufficient to apply "constructive possession” rule. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cardenas v. Wigen
E.D. Pa. · 1996 · confidence medium
Writing for the majority, Judge Manion reasoned that at least in cases where “contraband is found where only a few inmates have access," use of the constructive possession doctrine to satisfy the Hill standard is "unproblematical.” Id. at 345 (citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-57 , 105 S.Ct. at 2774-75 (three inmates observed fleeing from the scene of an assault); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (contraband found in locker shared by two inmates)); see Lasley v. Godinez, 833 F.Supp. 714 (N.D.Ill.1993) (contraband discovered behind panel located above inmate's cell door presen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James P. Cunningham v. Daniel R. McBride
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-457 (disciplinary action supported when inmate was one of three seen fleeing from scene of assault even when victim denied fellow inmates had assaulted him); Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir.1992) (discovery of weapon in area controlled by four inmates created twenty-five percent chance of guilt supporting disciplinary action); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (disciplinary action supported when contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates). 7 The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. * After preliminary examina…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shon Turner v. Paul Caspari, Mary Brundage, Ann Austermann Major J. Smith Janet Schneider
8th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
"Due process requirements are satisfied if there is any evidence in the record which supports the disciplinary decision.” Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56 , 105 S.Ct. at 2774 ; Rudd v. Sargent, 866 F.2d 260, 262 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harms v. Godinez
N.D. Ill. · 1993 · confidence medium
In light of Hill and Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (constructive possession of contraband found in shared locker did not violate due process), we can hardly say that it was “clearly established” that finding the Plaintiff guilty violated his constitutional rights.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edward Hamilton v. Michael O'leary, Michael P. Lane, Vern Scott (2×)
7th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-57 , 105 S.Ct. at 2774-75 (three inmates seen fleeing from the scene of an assault); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) (contraband found in locker shared by two inmates).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. Caspari
E.D. Mo. · 1992 · confidence medium
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 , 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773-74 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990); Rudd v. Sargent, 866 F.2d 260, 262 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton v. Scott
N.D. Ill. · 1991 · confidence medium
Every court that has considered whether a prison disciplinary committee could base its decision on such a report has upheld its use for that purpose. 14 For example, Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir.1990) found that “some evidence” did exist in a case similar to the one here.
discussed Cited "see" Mack v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
E.D. Ark. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990) and Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2011) (collective culpability for contraband found in a shared area is “some evidence” supporting disciplinary sanctions).
discussed Cited "see" Davis v. Warden
N.D. Ind. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (disciplinary action supported when contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates).
cited Cited "see" Richard E. Lathan v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 679-80 (8th Cir.1990) (contraband found in shared locker; other inmate testified appellant not responsible).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Flowers v. Anderson
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id. at 680 ; see also id. at 680 (Heaney, J., dissenting) (“I would ... have no trouble in concurring if the prison rules made Mason responsible for any items found in the joint locker which violated prison rules, but the prison rules do not so provide.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shelby v. Gelios
7th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985), and evidence of constructive possession is sufficient to meet this standard when drugs are found where only a handful of inmates have access, see Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341 , 345—46 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 679-80 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that “some evidence” supported disciplinary charge against inmate where he and another inmate shared a locker and the other inmate admitted to putting contraband in the locker).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shelby, David v. Gelios, M.
7th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and evidence of constructive possession is sufficient to meet this standard when drugs are found where only a handful of inmates have access, see Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341 , 345‐46 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 , 679‐80 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that “some evidence” supported disciplinary charge against inmate where he and another inmate shared a locker and the other inmate admitted to putting contraband in the locker).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tommie E. Mason
v.
Willis H. Sargent, Warden Greg Lord, Hearing Officer Administrator R.K. Noggle, Hearing Officer J.E. Bishop, Correctional Officer, Cummins Unit A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
89-2362.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 18, 1990.
898 F.2d 679
Published

898 F.2d 679

Tommie E. MASON, Appellant,
v.
Willis H. SARGENT, Warden; Greg Lord, Hearing Officer
Administrator; R.K. Noggle, Hearing Officer; J.E. Bishop,
Correctional Officer, Cummins Unit; A.L. Lockhart,
Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees.

No. 89-2362.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 25, 1989.
Decided March 20, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 18, 1990.

Tommie E. Mason, pro se.

Kelly A. Procter, Waldron, Ark., for appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

[*~679]1

Tommie E. Mason, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals from an order of the district court[1] dismissing his pro se civil rights complaint.

2

Mason sued prison official and guards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that he had been unfairly disciplined. In support of his claim, Mason stated that on December 8, 1987, Officer Bishop searched Mason's locker box, found contraband pajamas allegedly made from altered bed linens and prison clothing, ignored inmate Walker's statement that Walker had placed the items in Mason's locker box, and charged Mason with four institutional rule violations. Mason stated that the disciplinary committee found him guilty of three of the four charges, placed him on thirty days' restriction, ordered him to make $27.28 restitution for damaged prison property, and reduced his status from class one to class three. Mason also alleged that prison officials involved in the appellate review process had failed to reverse the committee's decision.

3

Defendants filed a combination motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment alleging that Mason had failed to state a claim. Defendants filed the affidavits of the charging officer, hearing officers, and appeal officers in support of the motion.

4

Officer Bishop's affidavit stated that on December 8, 1987, he searched Mason's locker box and found altered bed linens and prison clothing. He then charged Mason with four institutional rule violations.

5

Officer Noggle's affidavit stated that on December 17, 1987, he conducted a hearing on the violations and found that Mason had damaged state property, was in possession of contraband, had engaged in unauthorized activities, but was not guilty of the fourth rule violation.

6

Officer Lord's affidavit stated that he had reviewed Officer Noggle's decision. Lord noted that committee reviewed the incident report, inspected the items of altered sheets and clothing, and discounted a witness statement offered by Mason. Lord also stated that inmates are held responsible for items found in their locker boxes.

7

Warden Sargent's affidavit stated that he had reviewed the disciplinary proceedings, found that Mason had received due process and a fair and impartial hearing, and denied Mason's appeal. Director Lockhart's affidavit stated that he had also denied Mason's appeal.

8

In his reply to the defendants' motion, Mason stated that inmate Walker had admitted placing the altered sheets and clothing in a locker box that he and Mason shared. Mason argued that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt because no one had actually seen him alter prison property and Walker had exonerated him. Mason submitted a copy of the "Disciplinary Hearing Action Report," which states that "[W]itness Statement doesn't exonerate inmate [sic] of the charges." Mason requested that the defendants be directed to produce the allegedly contradictory statement for his inspection.

9

The defendants argued that Mason had no right to examine Walker's statement and that, as a matter of policy, inmate witnesses' statements are kept confidential in order to prevent reprisals.

10

The magistrate[2] ordered defendants to produce Walker's statement for an in camera inspection.

11

The magistrate found that the incident report, physical evidence of altered prison property, and Walker's statement constituted "some evidence" supporting the disciplinary committee's decision and recommended that the district court grant summary judgment for the defendants. Mason did not file objections, and the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendations.

12

In reaching its decision, the disciplinary committee considered the incident report, the altered prison property, Walker's statement, and Mason's denial. Mason attended the hearing and was allowed to rebut the charges. There was a factual basis for the disciplinary committee's decision. Due process requirements are satisfied if there is any evidence in the record which supports the disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773-74, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Rudd v. Sargent, 866 F.2d 260, 262 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam).

13

The order dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

14

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting.

15

I respectfully dissent. There is no evidence in the record presented to us that supports the defendants' claim that Mason violated prison regulations. It is undisputed that Mason and Walker shared a locker. It is also clear that Mason denied knowledge of the presence of the pajamas in the locker and also denied that he made the pajamas from prison materials--probably sheets and pillow cases. Moreover, Walker admitted that the pajamas were his and not Mason's.

16

If the disciplinary committee had stated that they disbelieved the testimony of Mason and Walker, I would have no quarrel with the majority opinion. They did not do so. I would also have no trouble in concurring if the prison rules made Mason responsible for any items found in the joint locker which violated prison rules, but the prison rules do not so provide. Thus, there is neither a basis in fact nor law for the decision of the prison officials. What happened is obvious: prison guards found the pajamas in the joint locker, and they decided to charge Mason before they knew that the pajamas belonged to, and had been made by, Walker. Once having made their decision, the guards simply did not have the courage to right the wrong.

[*~680]17

This may appear to some to be a small matter, but the punishment imposed on Mason for a violation that he did not commit is significant. It is important that the courts support the decision of prison officials whenever there is some evidence to do so, but there is none here.

1

The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas

2

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of Arkansas