Requirements – Procedures. A. In those instances of prison disciplinary proceedings that result in the revocation of earned credits, the prisoner, after exhausting administrative remedies, may seek judicial review in the district court of the official residence of the Department of Corrections. To be considered by the court, the inmate shall meet the following requirements: 1. The petition shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the date the petitioner is notified of the final Department of Corrections decision in the Department disciplinary appeal process. 2. The petition shall only name the Department of Corrections as the respondent and service shall be in accordance with the rules for service under the laws of this state. 3. The petition shall be limited to the review of only one disciplinary report and no other pleading is allowed other than the petition and the answer. 4. The court shall not consider any pleadings from any intervening parties and shall not stay the Department disciplinary process during the review of the misconduct hearing. B. The answer of the Department shall be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the petition unless the court orders a special report upon motion by one party or upon its own motion. C. The petition shall assert that due process was not provided and prove which element of due process, relevant only to a prison
administrative disciplinary proceeding, was not provided by the prison staff. D. The court shall only determine whether due process was provided by the revoking authority. In determining whether due process was provided, the court shall determine: 1. Whether written notice of the charge was provided to the inmate; 2. Whether the inmate had a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours to prepare after notice of the charge; 3. Whether the inmate was provided an opportunity for a hearing by a prison employee not involved in bringing the charge; 4. Whether the inmate had the opportunity to present relevant documentary evidence; 5. Whether the inmate had the opportunity to call witnesses when doing so would not be hazardous to institutional safety or burden correctional goals; 6. Whether the inmate was provided a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the discipline imposed; and 7. Whether any evidence existed in the record upon which the hearing officer could base a finding of guilt. E. The judicial review as provided in this section shall not be an independent assessment of the credibility of any witness or a weighing of the evidence, and there shall be no right to an error free proceeding or to confront accusers. The only remedy to be provided, if the court finds due process was not provided, is an order to the Department to provide due process. F. There shall be no recovery allowed for costs and fees, providing that frivolous petitions are subject to the sanctions provided by the laws of this state. G. Either party aggrieved by the final order of the district court on a petition for judicial review may only appeal the order to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals as set forth in the rules of such Court. Added by Laws 2005, c. 159, § 5, emerg. eff. May 10, 2005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 2007–2020 · leading case:
Payne v. Kerns, 2020 OK 31 (Okla. 2020).
Payne v. Kerns, 2020 OK 31 (Okla. 2020).
· cites it 3× “By punishing inmates with something less than revocation of earned credits, the DOC escapes the statutory review process of 57 O.S. 2011§564.1. 22 Inmates must be afforded some other process by which they can challenge the DOC's adherence to its own rules, and the regulations…”
Magar v. Parker, 490 F.3d 816 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 564.1 (West 2007).”
Williams v. Watts, 425 F. App'x 774 (10th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The district court *778 reasoned that, “[i]n those instances where earned credits are revoked in a prison disciplinary hearing, an Oklahoma inmate can pursue a judicial appeal process through a petition for judicial review, pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1 .... The…”
Terry v. Jones, 259 F. App'x 85 (10th Cir. 2007).
“d there was sufficient evidence for the disciplinary findings, (3) concluded Petitioner had no valid equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, (4) considered Petitioner’s significant hardship, (5) concluded the disciplinary hearing was conducted properly, (6) denied…”
Mitchell v. Howard, 419 F. App'x 810 (10th Cir. 2011).
“On January 9, 2009, Mitchell filed a petition for judicial review in the Oklahoma County District Court pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1 . That court denied relief on March 4, 2009, and the journal entry of the court’s final order was filed on March 6, 2009.”
Loftis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 308 F. App'x 290 (10th Cir. 2009).
“Loftis next sought judicial review of the disciplinary hearing in Oklahoma County District Court pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1 . 1 The court found Loftis had received all due process protections.”
Cathey v. Workman, 516 F. App'x 698 (10th Cir. 2013).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1 (effective May 10, 2005).”
Velasco v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2011 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 564.1(C) ("The petition shall assert that due process was not provided and prove which element of due process, relevant only to a prison administrative disciplinary proceeding, was not provided by the prison staff,") (emphasis added).”
Gordon v. Farris, 644 F. App'x 804 (10th Cir. 2016).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1 (G); Okla. Ct.”
Brown v. Jones, 218 F. App'x 805 (10th Cir. 2007).
“The next day, Oklahoma adopted a provision allowing for judicial review, Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 564.1, which permits an inmate to appeal an adverse ODOC final decision in a disciplinary appeal to the state district court within 90 days.”
Terry v. Jones, 327 F. App'x 65 (10th Cir. 2009).
“(citing Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 564.1 (West 2007)).”
Carson v. Trammell, 417 F. App'x 724 (10th Cir. 2011).
“See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 564.1 ; see also Magar, 490 F.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1(C) — 1 case
Velasco v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2011 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
“See 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 564.1(C) ("The petition shall assert that due process was not provided and prove which element of due process, relevant only to a prison administrative disciplinary proceeding, was not provided by the prison staff,") (emphasis added).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1(D) — 1 case
Velasco v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2011 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
“See 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 564.1(C) ("The petition shall assert that due process was not provided and prove which element of due process, relevant only to a prison administrative disciplinary proceeding, was not provided by the prison staff,") (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.