×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
"Some Evidence" Exists Iowa Prisoner Engaged in Assault Rather than Fighting
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held there was some evidence" to find
a prisoner at the Iowa State Penitentiary guilty of assault rather than
fighting. A guard observed two prisoners horse playing in the exercise pen,
and as he approached they began to exchange punches. After requesting, to
no avail, that the prisoners cease, guards used a chemical agent to break
up the fight. At a disciplinary hearing both prisoners were convicted of
assault and disobeying an order, and remanded to the prison's Maximum
Security block for one year and loss of 365 days gain time.
One of the prisoners appealed, but was denied. He then brought a
state-court post-conviction action, which was denied. His habeas corpus
action under 28 U.S.C. §2254 was also denied by the District Court.
The Eighth Circuit held it only needed to determine if some evidence
existed to support the sanction imposed by prison officials. The appeals
court found there was no evidence to support a conclusion that the prisoner
did not intend to injure the other prisoner, and did in fact strike him
repeatedly. The appellate court held nothing in the rules rendered assault
and fighting mutually exclusive, and by the plain language of the rules he
could have been sanctioned for either.
Accordingly, the District Court's order denying habeas relief was affirmed.
See: Gomez v. Graves, 323 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2003).
a prisoner at the Iowa State Penitentiary guilty of assault rather than
fighting. A guard observed two prisoners horse playing in the exercise pen,
and as he approached they began to exchange punches. After requesting, to
no avail, that the prisoners cease, guards used a chemical agent to break
up the fight. At a disciplinary hearing both prisoners were convicted of
assault and disobeying an order, and remanded to the prison's Maximum
Security block for one year and loss of 365 days gain time.
One of the prisoners appealed, but was denied. He then brought a
state-court post-conviction action, which was denied. His habeas corpus
action under 28 U.S.C. §2254 was also denied by the District Court.
The Eighth Circuit held it only needed to determine if some evidence
existed to support the sanction imposed by prison officials. The appeals
court found there was no evidence to support a conclusion that the prisoner
did not intend to injure the other prisoner, and did in fact strike him
repeatedly. The appellate court held nothing in the rules rendered assault
and fighting mutually exclusive, and by the plain language of the rules he
could have been sanctioned for either.
Accordingly, the District Court's order denying habeas relief was affirmed.
See: Gomez v. Graves, 323 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Gomez v. Graves
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 323 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2003). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Gomez v. Graves, 323 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 03/13/2003)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 02-1646SI
[3] 323 F.3d 610, 2003
[4] March 13, 2003
[5] JUAN GOMEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
L. W. GRAVES, JR., APPELLEE.
[6] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
[7] Before Bowman, Richard S. Arnold, and Bye, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard S. Arnold, Circuit Judge
[9] Submitted: January 14, 2003
[10] Juan Gomez is before this Court arguing that his due-process rights were violated when he lost 365 days of good time after being found guilty of assaulting another inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary. The crux of his argument is that he was guilty only of fighting, not assault. Because he maintains that fighting is a lesser offense, *fn1 he believes he should have received a less severe sanction. We reject Mr. Gomez's argument and affirm the District Court's *fn2 denial of his petition for habeas corpus.
[11] I.
[12] Mr. Gomez is a resident of the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison. At approximately 7:30 a.m. on March 3, 1998, he was in the exercise pen with other inmates. The prison officer charged with watching the exercise pen noticed that Mr. Gomez was engaged in horseplay with another inmate named Luke Martin. As the officer approached, the horseplay escalated into something more serious -- the inmates had begun to exchange punches. Mr. Gomez repeatedly punched Mr. Martin in the face. After requesting, to no avail, that the prisoners cease, officers used a chemical agent to break up the fight. Mr. Martin was escorted to the prison infirmary because his face was bleeding. The officers wrote incident reports indicating that Mr. Gomez had committed numerous rules violations, including fighting, assault, and disobeying a direct order from an officer.
[13] Mr. Gomez was brought before the prison's administrative law judge, Charles Harper, for a disciplinary hearing. Mr. Harper concluded that Mr. Gomez had committed two violations: assault and disobeying a direct order. To punish Mr. Gomez, he ordered him confined to the prison's maximum security block for one year and ordered the loss of 365 days of good time. *fn3 Mr. Gomez appealed this decision to the proper prison officials, but each of his appeals was rejected.
[14] Mr. Gomez then brought a post-conviction action in the state-court system alleging that the loss of good time violated his due-process rights because there was no evidence to support his conviction for assault. He argued that he was guilty only of fighting, which he regarded as a less serious rules violation. This argument was rejected by the state court, and review was denied by the Iowa Supreme Court. Mr. Gomez then commenced this § 2254 action. The District Court denied his habeas petition, finding that there was some evidence that Mr. Gomez had committed an assault.
[15] II.
[16] Mr. Gomez now presses his argument that he was guilty only of fighting to this Court. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's decision that Mr. Gomez was guilty of assaulting Mr. Martin.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 02-1646SI
[3] 323 F.3d 610, 2003
[4] March 13, 2003
[5] JUAN GOMEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
L. W. GRAVES, JR., APPELLEE.
[6] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
[7] Before Bowman, Richard S. Arnold, and Bye, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard S. Arnold, Circuit Judge
[9] Submitted: January 14, 2003
[10] Juan Gomez is before this Court arguing that his due-process rights were violated when he lost 365 days of good time after being found guilty of assaulting another inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary. The crux of his argument is that he was guilty only of fighting, not assault. Because he maintains that fighting is a lesser offense, *fn1 he believes he should have received a less severe sanction. We reject Mr. Gomez's argument and affirm the District Court's *fn2 denial of his petition for habeas corpus.
[11] I.
[12] Mr. Gomez is a resident of the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison. At approximately 7:30 a.m. on March 3, 1998, he was in the exercise pen with other inmates. The prison officer charged with watching the exercise pen noticed that Mr. Gomez was engaged in horseplay with another inmate named Luke Martin. As the officer approached, the horseplay escalated into something more serious -- the inmates had begun to exchange punches. Mr. Gomez repeatedly punched Mr. Martin in the face. After requesting, to no avail, that the prisoners cease, officers used a chemical agent to break up the fight. Mr. Martin was escorted to the prison infirmary because his face was bleeding. The officers wrote incident reports indicating that Mr. Gomez had committed numerous rules violations, including fighting, assault, and disobeying a direct order from an officer.
[13] Mr. Gomez was brought before the prison's administrative law judge, Charles Harper, for a disciplinary hearing. Mr. Harper concluded that Mr. Gomez had committed two violations: assault and disobeying a direct order. To punish Mr. Gomez, he ordered him confined to the prison's maximum security block for one year and ordered the loss of 365 days of good time. *fn3 Mr. Gomez appealed this decision to the proper prison officials, but each of his appeals was rejected.
[14] Mr. Gomez then brought a post-conviction action in the state-court system alleging that the loss of good time violated his due-process rights because there was no evidence to support his conviction for assault. He argued that he was guilty only of fighting, which he regarded as a less serious rules violation. This argument was rejected by the state court, and review was denied by the Iowa Supreme Court. Mr. Gomez then commenced this § 2254 action. The District Court denied his habeas petition, finding that there was some evidence that Mr. Gomez had committed an assault.
[15] II.
[16] Mr. Gomez now presses his argument that he was guilty only of fighting to this Court. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's decision that Mr. Gomez was guilty of assaulting Mr. Martin.