Gritts 143652 v. Martinez

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 8 Lucas Lee Gritts, No. CV 16-01233-PHX-GMS 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER v. 11

12 Unknown Martinez, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 116) regarding the 16 testimony of confidential informants. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the 17 motion. 19 On October 23rd, 2015, Plaintiff Lucas Gritts was found guilty of a disciplinary 20 violation for conspiring to commit an assault on Correctional Officer II Pavan Baron at an 21 Arizona Department of Corrections hearing. Due to the prison’s use of confidential 22 informants at this hearing, Mr. Gritts was not allowed to attend. Because of this guilty 23 determination, Mr. Gritts lost early release credits, was removed from the Step-Down 24 program and placed in solitary confinement for one year. 25 On May 16, 2019, a rehearing of the underlying disciplinary issue was conducted. 26 There, Plaintiff was allowed to attend, and was again found guilty of conspiring to assault 27 a corrections officer. As such, Plaintiff’s ultimate guilt is not at issue in this case. Rather, 28 whether he was sufficiently provided due process during the first hearing is the primary 1 issue for trial. 3 I. Motion in Limine 4 “[T]he minimum requirements of procedural due process” in prison disciplinary 5 hearings “require that ‘the findings of the prison disciplinary board [be] supported by some 6 evidence in the record.’” Burnsworth v. Gunderson, 179 F.3d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 1999) 7 (quoting Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454–55 (2001)). 8 “Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire 9 record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the 10 evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455 (1985). “Instead, the relevant question is whether there is 11 any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary 12 board.” Id. at 455-56. 13 Here, testimony from Captain Martinez, the disciplinary hearing officer, and 14 Plaintiff’s opportunity to cross-examine that officer, is sufficient evidence to meet this 15 lenient standard. 16 Perhaps more importantly, it is not entirely clear that whether “some evidence” was 17 provided to support Mr. Gritts’s conviction is a remaining issue in this case after summary 18 judgment. This Court denied summary judgment as to Count One because “there are 19 genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff’s due process rights were violated by 20 his exclusion from the disciplinary hearing and the failure to provide him with a written 21 statement of the hearing results.” (Doc. 75 at 15). And as for Count Two, the Court found 22 that “there is . . . a question of fact regarding Plaintiff’s removal from the Step-Down 23 Program, which relied on the guilty finding.” (Doc. 75 at 17). But at no point did the Court 24 deny summary judgment as to Count One on the basis that there was not some evidence 25 supporting Mr. Gritts’s underlying conviction for the conspiracy to commit assault. 26 II. Remaining Issues 27 Arizona Department of Corrections has now informed the Court that an additional 28 hearing was conducted in May of this year, after which Plaintiff was found guilty again. 1| This raises at least two additional issues: 2 1. Whether Plaintiff can establish damages for Count One that were caused by the alleged due process violation in October 2015; and 4 2. Whether Count Two—which claims that the decision to remove Plaintiff 5| from the Step-Down program was not supported by “‘some evidence” because of an 6] allegedly invalid guilty determination in October 2015—is now lacking causation because Plaintiff was again found guilty at a hearing without the alleged due process violation. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 116) is DENIED. The parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs, not to exceed 10 | five (5) pages, on the two remaining issues outlined by the Court within fourteen (14) 11 | days of the date of this Order. 12 Dated this 25th day of July, 2019. 13 *) 4 i Hleertay Sete! Wirsay 15 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28