DocketNumber: No. CV 96-0325411-S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13392
Judges: CARROLL, J.
Filed Date: 11/20/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The petitioner requests that the safety threat member designation be expunged from his record; that he be released from close custody; that he be restored the good time credit that was forfeited; and that he be credited with the good time he would have earned since the date of the incident.
The Court makes the following findings of fact: On December 16, 1995, a large scale fight broke out at MacDougall Correctional Institution involving at least thirty inmates, some of whom were known or suspected gang, or "security risk group" members. The fight was considered to be a fight between rival gang members. As a result of the fight and his involvement in the fight, the petitioner received a disciplinary report. A disciplinary hearing was held on December 20, 1995 at which hearing the petitioner was present and testified. The petitioner CT Page 13393 was found guilty of the charge by the disciplinary Hearing Officer. As a result thereof, the petitioner received 30 days loss of visits, 15 days confinement to quarters, 15 days of punitive segregation and 90 days loss of good time.
In his own testimony, both in his disciplinary proceeding at the institution and before the Court, the petitioner acknowledged being amidst the inmates who were involved in the fight on the date in question but that he (the petitioner) was not fighting. Rather, the petitioner asserts that he was attempting to break up the fight between the inmates. The petitioner asserts that he was not involved in the fight in any other way.
The Hearing Officer, Lieutenant Meullinaus (sp), testified and the Court finds that the petitioner inmate presented his own witness who testified at the disciplinary hearing that the petitioner was involved in the incident (fight) in that he was attempting to "separate a couple of people to stop the fight". The Hearing Officer further testified and the Court finds that at the disciplinary hearing, the petitioner inmate, by his own admission, acknowledged that he went up to the fight in an attempt to break up the fight. The Hearing Officer further testified and the Court finds that the incident was a serious incident and jeopardized the safety and security of the unit. The Hearing Officer further testified and the Court finds that if all of the inmates had followed the orders of the Corrections Officers to return to their cells and stay away from the area where the fight was taking place, the incident would simply have been a fight between two inmates that could have easily been handled by the Corrections Officers who responded to the incident. The presence of a large number of other inmates, some of whom were clearly involved in the fight and others of whom now claim they were simply trying to break up the fight, unnecessarily complicated matters and compounded the dangerousness of the situation.
In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court held that due process requires certain procedural protections before an inmate can be deprived of a protected liberty interest in good time credits.
The Supreme Court has held that in balancing these interests,due process is satisfied if some evidence supports the decisionby prison officials to revoke good time credits (emphasis added).Superintendent v. Hill, supra
"In determining whether a decision of a prison disciplinary board had some evidence, courts are not required to examine the entire record, make an independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weigh the evidence." Williams v. Bass,
As regards the sanctions that were imposed as a result of the findings of the Hearing Officer who presided over the disciplinary hearing, the Court finds that all of the due process requirements set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra
As regards the petitioner's claim that he was classified as a security risk group safety member, such claims are barred by virtue the holding of Abed v. Commissioner of Correction,
The Court has carefully considered testimony and weighed the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the hearing and the Court has further carefully considered all of the exhibits that have been submitted to the Court in connection with the hearing. Based upon all of the foregoing, the Court finds that the appropriate due process requirements were met at the petitioner's disciplinary hearing and that there was clearly "some" evidence to support the Hearing Officer's findings. This Court cannot engage in a second evidentiary hearing. The Hearing Officer's factual findings must stand in the absence of an abuse of authority by that officer. Those findings are not unreasonable and there has been no showing of any abuse of authority by the Hearings Officer.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is accordingly denied.
BY THE COURT
CARROLL, J.