Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; February 8, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
William Zimmerman, an inmate in Indiana, was found guilty by the Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) for marijuana use, resulting in a revocation of 180 days of earned credit time and a demotion from credit-earning class I to class II. Following the conviction, he was also notified of a twelve-month denial of contact visits, as per a statewide directive for substance-related offenses. Zimmerman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, claiming due process violations during the CAB hearing, specifically regarding his inability to call witnesses and alleging that the drug test was retaliatory for previous grievances.
The district court denied his petition, which was affirmed on appeal. The incident began with a positive urinalysis for marijuana in April 2001, followed by a charge of unauthorized substance use. Zimmerman requested a hearing and claimed he wished to call witnesses; however, he signed a report indicating he did not wish to do so. He later wrote to correct this, but did not provide the names of any witnesses. At the CAB hearing, his request for a continuance to gather witness statements was denied, despite his claim of being quarantined for chicken pox for part of the time. Zimmerman sought to call the nurse and correctional officer who collected the urine sample, arguing that the sample was inadequate for testing.
The legal framework cited indicates that Indiana prisoners have a protected liberty interest in good-time credits and class status, necessitating due process protections during disciplinary proceedings. These protections include advance written notice of charges, opportunities to present evidence, and an explanation of the decision-maker's reliance on evidence. However, Zimmerman failed to establish that he identified his witnesses before the hearing, undermining his claim of a due process violation. Consequently, his arguments were deemed insufficient.
Prison inmates possess a due process right to call witnesses at disciplinary hearings, provided it aligns with institutional safety and correctional objectives. However, failing to identify witnesses until the day of the hearing waives this right. In this case, Zimmerman did not identify any witnesses prior to the hearing, rendering his late identification ineffective. He also alleged that his selection for a drug test was retaliatory due to a grievance he filed against a directive restricting contact visits for inmates with substance violations. Although the district court did not explicitly address this retaliation claim, it reviewed the disciplinary process and found it compliant with due process standards. Zimmerman received proper notice, had a hearing with an impartial board, and was provided a written explanation for the disciplinary action. The urinalysis report served as sufficient evidence for the board's determination of guilt. Moreover, Zimmerman failed to raise the retaliation issue before the board, and thus the claim lacks merit. Lastly, Zimmerman's objection regarding visitation restrictions post-conviction was deemed unrelated to the length of his custody, making it ineligible for habeas corpus relief as established by Supreme Court precedent. The court affirmed the district court's decision.
