Todd A. Lagerstrom v. Phil Kingston, et al.
463 F.3d 621 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An allegation that a prison official fabricated evidence for a disciplinary report does not state a claim for a procedural due process violation, so long as the prison provides the inmate with the minimum procedural safeguards required by Wolff v. McDonnell.
Facts:
- Todd Lagerstrom, an inmate in the general population at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI), was transferred without warning to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), a supermax prison, for 'security concerns'.
- Three weeks later, Lagerstrom received a conduct report from Lieutenant Morris charging him with 'possession of intoxicants' based on statements from four anonymous inmate informants.
- Lagerstrom denied the charge, stating he possessed loose tobacco, not marijuana.
- For his disciplinary hearing, Lagerstrom requested that Morris and the confidential informants be present for questioning and asked for copies of their statements, but his requests were denied.
- Following the hearing, where the only evidence was the conduct report and summaries of informant statements, Lagerstrom was found guilty.
- As a result of the guilty finding, Lagerstrom was sentenced to 8 days of adjustment segregation and 360 days of program segregation.
Procedural Posture:
- Lagerstrom's internal prison appeal of his disciplinary conviction was denied by Warden Phil Kingston.
- Lagerstrom petitioned for a writ of certiorari in Wisconsin state court, which reversed the disciplinary conviction and ordered it expunged from his record.
- Lagerstrom filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court against prison officials, including Lieutenant Morris and the hearing officers.
- The district court screened the complaint and dismissed all claims except one concerning his initial transfer to the supermax facility.
- Lagerstrom filed a motion for reconsideration and voluntarily withdrew the single claim that the court had allowed to proceed.
- Because Lagerstrom dropped his only viable claim, the district court dismissed the entire lawsuit.
- Lagerstrom appealed the district court's dismissal of his claims regarding the fabricated conduct report and the disciplinary hearing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prison official's use of fabricated evidence in a disciplinary report violate an inmate's procedural due process rights if the subsequent disciplinary hearing otherwise provides the required procedural safeguards?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Circuit Judge
No, a prison official's use of fabricated evidence in a disciplinary report does not violate an inmate's procedural due process rights if the inmate receives the required procedural safeguards. The protection from arbitrary action by prison officials, such as the use of false evidence, is found within the procedures mandated by due process itself. The court reasoned that as long as an inmate receives advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to present evidence to an impartial decisionmaker, and a written explanation for the disciplinary action, the constitutional requirements of procedural due process are met. The court relied on circuit precedent like McPherson v. McBride, which holds that the procedural protections are the constitutionally adequate safeguard against such arbitrary actions. The fact that Lagerstrom's conviction was later overturned in state court does not mean the initial hearing failed to satisfy these minimal constitutional standards; rather, it shows a corrective process at work. The court distinguished this situation from one where a false charge is brought in retaliation for an inmate's exercise of a constitutional right, which Lagerstrom did not allege.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Seventh Circuit's position that procedural due process claims must focus on the adequacy of the procedures themselves, not the substantive truth of the evidence presented. It establishes a high bar for inmates claiming they were framed by prison officials, requiring them to show a failure in the procedural steps (like lack of notice) rather than simply asserting the evidence was false. The ruling effectively channels such claims away from federal court unless there is a distinct constitutional violation, such as retaliation. By distinguishing but not resolving a potential substantive due process claim, the court leaves a narrow, theoretical path for future claims involving extreme misconduct, but reinforces that the primary remedy for false evidence lies within the procedural framework.
