Hollingsworth v. DuBois

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

April 2, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No.  94-2272 



                                 JAMES HOLLINGSWORTH,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            LARRY E. DUBOIS, ETC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            James Hollingsworth on brief pro se.
            ___________________

            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General   and
            ____________________

        Charles M. Wyzanski, Senior Litigation  Counsel, on Motion for Summary
        ___________________

        Disposition for appellees.


____________________


____________________



Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff/appellant James  Hollingsworth
                 ___________



            appeals    the    entry    of    judgment    in   favor    of



            defendants/appellees on  Hollingsworth's suit pursuant  to 42



            U.S.C.    1983.  Having reviewed carefully the record in this



            case,  including  the briefs  of  the  parties, we  summarily



            affirm.



                 Hollingsworth suffered  no deprivation of his  rights to



            procedural due process either when the hearing officer denied



            his request  to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing or



            when he  discounted the affidavits  Hollingsworth was allowed



            to submit.  A denial of a request to present witnesses is not



            a  due process  violation  when it  is based  on the  need of



            institutional safety.  See  Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S.  491, 497
                                   ___  _____    ____



            (1985).  Here,  the district court credited  the testimony of



            the hearing  officer that, even  if Hollingsworth had  made a



            timely request  to present witnesses, the  request would have



            been denied  because of  safety concerns in  transporting the



            witnesses from another prison.   As to the second  claim, the



            hearing  officer had  sufficient  support in  the record  for



            finding  two  of  the  affidavits  not  exculpatory  and  for



            questioning the credibility of the others.



                 Furthermore, the  district court  did not err  either in



            refusing  Hollingsworth's  request  to  present  witnesses at



            trial or  in not allowing  him to  introduce allegedly  newly



            found exculpatory evidence.   The district  court supportably


-2-



found that the witnesses'  testimony was not relevant  to any



            issue before the court.  Similarly, inasmuch as Hollingsworth



            does  not claim  that the  hearing officer  lacked sufficient



            evidence  to support  a finding of  guilty, the  "newly found



            evidence"  was  irrelevant  to  Hollingsworth's  due  process



            claims.   Moreover,  this evidence,  which was  cumulative of



            what had already been  presented at the disciplinary hearing,



            does nothing  to call the hearing  officer's determination of



            guilt into question.  



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___


-3-