prison disciplinary hearing in Washington

2024Due process requires that an inmate facing a prison disciplinary hearing: “(1) receive notice of the alleged violation; (2) be provided an opportunity to present documentary evidence and call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d at 396-97 .

2001Due process requires that an inmate facing a prison disciplinary hearing: "(1) receive notice of the alleged violation; (2) be provided an opportunity to present documentary evidence and call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action." In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wash.2d 388, 396-97 , 978 P.2d 1083 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1009 , 120 S.Ct. 507 , 145 L.Ed.2d 392 (1999).

2001Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 396-97 , 978 P.2d 1083 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1009 (1999).

2001Due process requires that an inmate facing a prison disciplinary hearing: "(1) receive notice of the alleged violation; (2) be provided an opportunity to present documentary evidence and call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action." In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wash.2d 388, 396-97 , 978 P.2d 1083 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1009 , 120 S.Ct. 507 , 145 L.Ed.2d 392 (1999).

2001Krier argues, citing Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d at 294 , 678 P.2d 323 , that his petition satisfies the substantial-prejudice-from-constitutional-error standard because due process also requires that he cannot be punished for conduct he did not know was prohibited, and that the disciplinary action was arbitrary and capricious because no evidence in the record of the hearing contradicts Krier's claim of lack of notice of the cell confinement, and no evidence in that record supports the superintendent's finding on the administrative appeal that he got notice via unit mail.

2001Krier argues, citing Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d at 294 , 678 P.2d 323 , that his petition satisfies the substantial-prejudice-from-constitutional-error standard because due process also requires that he cannot be punished for conduct he did not know was prohibited, and that the disciplinary action was arbitrary and capricious because no evidence in the record of the hearing contradicts Krier's claim of lack of notice of the cell confinement, and no evidence in that record supports the superintendent's finding on the administrative appeal that he got notice via unit mail.

2026When a petitioner seeks relief from discipline imposed as a result of a prison disciplinary hearing, as Weber does here, a court “will reverse a prison discipline decision only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary and capricious as to deny the petitioner a fundamentally fair proceeding so as to work to the offender’s prejudice.” Grantham, 168 Wn.2d at 215 .

2022Under WAC 137-28-285(1), an offender has rights including a “fair and impartial hearing” and to “[c]all witnesses and present documentary evidence, though the hearing officer may exclude witnesses/evidence deemed irrelevant, duplicative, or unnecessary.” Under WAC 137-28-300(1), “[t]he hearing officer shall ensure that the offender’s rights are protected throughout the hearing.” However, under WAC 137-28- 300(5), “[i]f an offender’s behavior disrupts the hearing, he/she may be removed and the hearing will continue on the record in the offender’s absence.” When a petitioner seeks relief from di

2026In a prison disciplinary hearing, minimum due process requires that DOC provide the incarcerated person “with a summary of any confidential information used in a disciplinary proceeding, and the hearing officer must make an independent determination of the reliability of the informant, the credibility of the information, and the necessity of confidentiality.” Malik, 152 Wn.

2023Malik, 152 Wn.

2003A personal restraint petitioner who alleges constitutional error arising from a prison disciplinary hearing "must demonstrate both that he is presently restrained due to constitutional error and that the error worked to his actual and substantial prejudice." In re Burton, 80 Wash.App. 573, 585 , 910 P.2d 1295 (1996).

2003A personal restraint petitioner who alleges constitutional error arising from a prison disciplinary hearing "must demonstrate both that he is presently restrained due to constitutional error and that the error worked to his actual and substantial prejudice." In re Burton, 80 Wash.App. 573, 585 , 910 P.2d 1295 (1996).

2001Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 396-97 , 978 P.2d 1083 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1009 (1999).

2001Due process requires that an inmate facing a prison disciplinary hearing: "(1) receive notice of the alleged violation; (2) be provided an opportunity to present documentary evidence and call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action." In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wash.2d 388, 396-97 , 978 P.2d 1083 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1009 , 120 S.Ct. 507 , 145 L.Ed.2d 392 (1999).

2024“Due process requires that an [incarcerated person] facing a prison disciplinary hearing . . . be provided an opportunity to present documentary evidence and call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals.” Krier, 108 Wn.

2024Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 , 105 S. Ct. 2768 , 86 L.

2024Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 , 105 S. Ct. 2768 , 86 L.

2021State v. Bobic, 140 Wn.2d 250, 265 , 996 P.2d 610 (2000).

2021State v. Bobic, 140 Wn.2d 250, 265 , 996 P.2d 610 (2000).

2001Due process requires that an inmate facing a prison disciplinary hearing: "(1) receive notice of the alleged violation; (2) be provided an opportunity to present documentary evidence and call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action." In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wash.2d 388, 396-97 , 978 P.2d 1083 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1009 , 120 S.Ct. 507 , 145 L.Ed.2d 392 (1999).

2001The high court had previously said in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) that an inmate's right to call witnesses and present evidence at a prison disciplinary hearing could be denied if granting the request would be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.

2001The high court had previously said in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) that an inmate's right to call witnesses and present evidence at a prison disciplinary hearing could be denied if granting the request would be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.

1999Cf In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 397 , 978 P.2d 1083 (1999) (In serious infraction hearings, Washington prisoners are entitled to minimum due process); In re Personal Restraint of Richardson, 100 Wn.2d 669, 670 , 675 P.2d 209 (1983) (restraint may include “a serious blot” on a person’s record resulting from a conviction even if the person has completed his or her sentence).

1999Cf In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 397 , 978 P.2d 1083 (1999) (In serious infraction hearings, Washington prisoners are entitled to minimum due process); In re Personal Restraint of Richardson, 100 Wn.2d 669, 670 , 675 P.2d 209 (1983) (restraint may include “a serious blot” on a person’s record resulting from a conviction even if the person has completed his or her sentence).

1996Anderson, 112 Wn.2d at 549 .

1996Reismiller, 101 Wn.2d at 293 (citing In re Lile, 100 Wn.2d 224, 225 , 668 P.2d 581 (1983)).

1996Reismiller, 101 Wn.2d at 293 (citing In re Lile, 100 Wn.2d 224, 225 , 668 P.2d 581 (1983)).

1996App. 230, 236-37 , 788 P.2d 1090 (1990) (whether prison disciplinary action is arbitrary and capricious depends not on whether a hearings officer followed technical hearing procedures but rather on whether the petitioner was afforded the minimum due process protections applicable in prison disciplinary proceedings). *586 Burton argues that his right to due process of law was violated in the course of the prison disciplinary hearing in his case when: (1) he was denied the right to call and question witnesses; (2) the hearing officer did not base her decision solely on the evidence presented at

1978Also, in United States v. Redfield, 402 F.2d 454 (4th Cir. 1968), the court held inadmissible a statement made by the defendant during a prison disciplinary hearing in response to a question by the warden.