Shawntele Jackson 200020 v. Jessie Ferguson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 2023 CA 000552
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENDERED: MAY 10, 2024; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-0552-MR

SHAWNTELE JACKSON APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-00389

JESSIE FERGUSON; CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT; DURELL ST. CLAIR; AND THOMAS HARPER APPELLEES

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ECKERLE, A. JONES, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

KAREM, JUDGE: Shawntele Jackson (“Jackson”), an inmate currently confined

at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, appeals pro se from the Franklin

Circuit Court’s order granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment regarding

Jackson’s action under Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 418.040 challenging

two disciplinary proceedings held at the Roederer Correctional Complex (“RCC”), which resulted in findings that he violated institution rules. Finding no error, we

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2021, corrections officers searched Jackson’s property.

During the search, officers discovered a universal charger, which investigating

officers determined was a cell phone charger. Jackson claimed he purchased it

through a catalog while housed at Lee Adjustment Center and used it to charge a

Nintendo DS gaming system (“DS”). However, this type of charger was not

available to inmates for purchase at the Lee Adjustment Center. Thus, Jackson

was charged with a violation of Corrections Policies and Procedures (“CPP”)

15.2(II)(C), 6-03 for possession or promotion of dangerous contraband.

Officers searched Jackson’s property again on May 18, 2021, and

located the DS. As was required, the DS had Jackson’s Department of Corrections

(“DOC”) inmate number. However, the device appeared to have once had another

inmate’s DOC number engraved on it, which was scratched off, and a sticker was

placed over it, obscuring the damage. Neither Jackson nor the DOC possessed any

record indicating that Jackson had purchased the Nintendo DS. Additionally,

while Jackson stated that it had been “inventoried multiple times,” he could not

provide proof of purchase. Thus, Jackson was charged with violating CPP

15.2(II)(C), 4-15, which prohibited the unauthorized transfer of money or property.

-2- The DOC’s Adjustment Committee found Jackson guilty of each

offense. His penalties consisted of 30 days in disciplinary segregation and 60 days

of canteen restriction, and he appealed to the Warden. The Warden affirmed both

convictions on July 27, 2021. Thereafter, Jackson filed a petition for declaration of

rights in Franklin Circuit Court. Appellees moved for summary judgment, which

the circuit court granted in an order entered on April 18, 2023. The Franklin

Circuit Court found that the DOC had afforded Jackson the process due to him and

that the “some evidence” standard utilized to review a prison disciplinary board’s

decision was met in this case. This appeal followed.

We will discuss further facts as they become relevant.

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review and the “Some Evidence” Standard

We will disturb the circuit court’s findings of fact only if they are

clearly erroneous. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 52.01; Cherry v.

Cherry, 634 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Ky. 1982). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if

it is not supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence sufficient to “induce

conviction in the mind of a reasonable person.” Hunter v. Hunter, 127 S.W.3d

656, 659 (Ky. App. 2003) (citations omitted). We review questions of law de

novo. Carroll v. Meredith, 59 S.W.3d 484, 489 (Ky. App. 2001).

-3- II. Due Process

Jackson argues on appeal that his due process rights were violated in

this case. However, the United States Supreme Court has determined that an

inmate’s due process rights are limited in prison disciplinary proceedings. Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974).

Indeed, “the full panoply of rights due a defendant in [criminal] proceedings does

not apply.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Webb v. Sharp, 223 S.W.3d 113, 117

(Ky. 2007). Limitations to an inmate’s due process rights are needed to “balanc[e]

the prison administration’s profound interest in maintaining order against the

inmate’s relatively minor interest in avoiding a portion of his sentence.” Smith v.

O’Dea, 939 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Ky. App. 1997).

Thus, due process for prison disciplinary proceedings necessitates:

“(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when

consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and

present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the

factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.”

Webb, 223 S.W.3d at 117-18 (citations omitted).

In this case, we agree that Jackson received adequate due process.

The DOC provided Jackson advance written notice of the charges against him, the

opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense, and a written

-4- statement from the factfinder of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the

disciplinary actions. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s determination that Jackson

received adequate due process in the proceedings.

III. “Some Evidence” Standard

Jackson additionally challenges the circuit court’s determination that

“some evidence” existed to support the findings. The United States Supreme Court

has established the “some evidence” standard for reviewing a prison disciplinary

board’s decision to revoke good time credits. Superintendent, Massachusetts

Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 2774,

86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985). The “some evidence” standard is met if “there is any

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the

disciplinary board.” Id. at 456-57, 105 S. Ct. at 2774 (citations omitted).

The evidence must only create a reasonable inference that the inmate

committed the charged offense. Smith, 939 S.W.2d at 357. Additionally,

“[a]scertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of

the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or

weighing of the evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S. Ct. at 2774. Rather, the

“relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support

the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56, 105 S. Ct. at

2774 (citations omitted).

-5- In this case, the circuit court correctly found that “some evidence”

supported the disciplinary board’s findings of guilt. Jackson does not dispute that

he possessed the charger and the DS. As to the charger, the Franklin Circuit Court

correctly found in its review of the record that Lee Adjustment Center did not

provide for purchase the type of charger that Jackson had in his possession and that

it was a charger typically used for cell phones. Because the device could charge a

cell phone, it was reasonable to infer that Jackson used it for that purpose. Smith,

939 S.W.2d at 357.

Moreover, the circuit court found “some evidence” to support the DS

conviction, as neither the DOC nor Jackson could provide records to prove that

Jackson’s possession of the DS was legitimate. Id. Instead, the device showed

signs of tampering and modifications to the inmate number. We agree with the

circuit court that the “some evidence” standard has been met in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Franklin Circuit Court’s

order granting the DOC’s motion for summary judgment.

ALL CONCUR.

-6- BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Shawntele Jackson, pro se Jonathan Gifford West Liberty, Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky

-7-