Bundy v. Cannon

453 F. Supp. 856, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16502
CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedJuly 19, 1978
DocketCiv. T-70-486, T-70-1363
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 453 F. Supp. 856 (Bundy v. Cannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bundy v. Cannon, 453 F. Supp. 856, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16502 (D. Md. 1978).

Opinion

THOMSEN, Senior District Judge.

In Bundy, et al. v. Cannon, et al., 328 F.Supp. 165 (D.Md.1971), this court, with the assistance of counsel and amici curiae, approved certain “Adjustment Procedures” for dealing with “adjustment violations” of “General Rules and Regulations of the Division of Correction” of the State of Maryland, which were filed as an Appendix to that opinion, at p. 174.

In December 1977 defendants herein filed a petition to modify the order approving the 1971 Adjustment Procedures. The court is now advised by one of the able attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case, who has continued his interest in correctional matters, and by the office of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland that they are in agreement that experience has shown certain modifications of those Adjustment Procedures are desirable. Counsel for the respective parties have filed herein revised Adjustment Procedures, to become effective on September 1, 1978, which modify in certain respects the Adjustment Procedures attached as an appendix to the opinion of this court filed herein on May 26, 1971, 328 F.Supp. 165. Counsel have stated to the court that in their opinion the revised procedures meet the minimum due process requirements delineated in that opinion, which they agree are still the applicable standards. Since this constitutes a full resolution of the issues raised by defendants in their “Petition to Modify Order,” filed on December 28, 1977, that petition will be dismissed.

It should be noted that the revision of the adjustment procedures has been made by agreement of counsel for the respective parties, and does not represent a ruling by this court that all of the provisions of the amended Adjustment Procedures, particularly the provision requiring a hearing before a prisoner is transferred from a community adult rehabilitation center or pre-release center to a higher security institution, are required by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976).

REVISED APPENDIX

MARYLAND

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

DIVISION OF CORRECTION

ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES:

The following procedures shall be utilized in administering inmate discipline:

MINOR VIOLATION: A minor violation is one in which, if the inmate is found to have committed the infraction charged, the maximum sentence he could receive would be not over fifteen (15) days confinement or the loss of over five (5) days of good behavior time or both. In minor violations the following procedures shall be followed:

1. The inmate shall be furnished a copy of the Notice of Infraction of the minor violation with which he is charged. The Notice shall be served not later than forty- *858 eight (48) hours after the alleged violation, and the inmate shall appear before the Adjustment Team within ninety-six (96) hours of the alleged infraction, unless prevented by exceptional circumstances. A hearing shall not be held within twenty-four (24) hours after the inmate has been served with a Notice of Infraction in order to permit him to prepare a defense. Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are excluded in determining these time periods.

2. The Adjustment Team to hear minor violations of the rules shall consist' of the following members:

(a) A Hearing Officer from the office of the Commissioner of the Division of Correction. He shall act as Chairman of the Team. Whenever the Hearing Officer is not present, the Assistant Warden of Treatment * shall act as Chairman.
(b) A Senior Correctional Officer
(c) A Classification Counselor or any other member of the professional treatment staff.

3. The Adjustment Team’s function is:

(a) To evaluate the inmate’s alleged infraction and render a fair and objective verdict as to his involvement in the infraction.
(b) To determine what.type of adjustment should be rendered if the inmate is found to have committed the infraction.

4. The inmate shall be given a chance to discuss his case when he appears before the Adjustment Team and he shall also be entitled to have the following representation:

(a) Another inmate of the institution where the hearing is held, or staff member to appear before the Adjustment Team with him as his representative. The inmate or staff member must do so on a voluntary basis.
(b) The Institution is not bound to transport an inmate from one institution to another to represent an accused inmate.

5. If it is found that an infraction has not been committed by the inmate, the Adjustment report shall duly state that the inmate did not commit the infraction charged.

6. If the Adjustment Team determines that the inmate has committed the infraction charged, he may be subjected to one or more of the following actions:

(a) Counselling and/or warning.
(b) Reprimand.
(c) Adjustment release, i. e., probation within the institution.
(d) Temporary loss of one or more privileges.
(e) Loss of good behavior time (not to exceed five (5) days).
(f) Confinement (not to exceed fifteen (15) days).
(g) Other appropriate punishment which is proportionate to the offense which he has been found to have committed but does not exceed, in severity, the loss of five (5) days of good behavior time or confinement for fifteen (15) days.

The Adjustment Team may recommend a change in housing or job assignment, but said recommendation must be approved by the appropriate institutional authority.

7. The Team shall make a written summary of its proceeding, including its decision and a brief statement of the reasons for that decision. The inmate shall have the right, at the conclusion of the hearing, to state any objections he may have to the decision of the Team.

8. If the inmate objects to the decision, the Warden ** or his designated representative shall, within three (3) days after the hearing, review the decision of the Adjustment Team, based upon the record of its proceedings.

9. On review, the Warden may take the following action:

*859 (a) Agree with the decision of the Adjustment Team.
(b) Order further or new proceedings.
(c) Reduce or suspend the decision of the Team.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Massey v. Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
886 A.2d 585 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2005)
Bundy v. Cannon
538 F. Supp. 410 (D. Maryland, 1982)
Epps v. Levine
484 F. Supp. 474 (D. Maryland, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 F. Supp. 856, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bundy-v-cannon-mdd-1978.