FOLEY (JAMES) VS. HANEY (STEVE), ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: AUGUST 5, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-001240-MR
JAMES FOLEY
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 10-CI-00050
STEVE HANEY; AND
MARK KILBURN
APPELLEES
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: KELLER AND LAMBERT, JUDGES; SHAKE,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
KELLER, JUDGE: James Foley (Foley) appeals from the trial court's order
denying his petition for declaratory judgment. On appeal, Foley argues that he was
deprived of due process by a prison hearing officer and that the trial court erred
1
Senior Judge Ann O'Malley Shake sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statute(s)
(KRS) 21.580.
when it failed to reverse the hearing officer's findings. The appellees have not filed
a brief in response to this appeal. For the following reasons, we vacate and
remand.
FACTS
On July 24, 2009, an inmate suffered severe injuries in an altercation.
Following the altercation, Foley was charged with taking action that resulted in
serious physical injury to another inmate. It is unclear whether that charge was
based on his presence during, or participation in, the altercation. Regardless, Foley
denied participating in the altercation or being present, noting that he had been
either in the medical unit receiving an insulin injection or eating in the cafeteria at
the time. In order to prove that he was not present, Foley requested copies of the
medical facility and cafeteria records, which he states would show when he was
present at each location. It does not appear that Foley was provided with those
records.
On October 20, 2009, Foley attended a hearing. The audiotape
recording of that hearing is barely audible; however, based on what we can hear,
the hearing officer reviewed medical records/reports related to the inmate's injuries
and stated that he had a report based on confidential information. When asked if
there was more than one informant, the hearing officer stated that he could not say.
When asked if he deemed the informant(s) to be reliable, the hearing officer said
that he did. When asked the basis for finding the informant(s) reliable, the hearing
-2-
officer said that he could not reveal that information. However, he did state that he
had the information with him at the hearing.
It is unclear if the hearing officer had or reviewed the records from the
medical unit and cafeteria that Foley requested. However, the hearing officer
heard Foley's statements that he could not have been at the scene because he was in
the medical unit and/or cafeteria at the time, and that he had no history of violent
behavior in his six-plus years of institutionalization.
Following the hearing, the hearing officer found as follows:
"According to the investigation conducted by Sgt. Humfleet, [Foley] was placed
where the assault took place . . . . Due to the investigation conducted by Sgt.
Humfleet and medical records, I find [Foley] guilty." The hearing officer
recommended that Foley be ordered to make restitution for the injured inmate's
medical expenses; that he serve 180 days of disciplinary segregation; and that he
lose 730 days of good-time credit. Foley appealed the hearing officer's findings to
the warden, who found no violations of Foley's due process rights and agreed that
the charge and penalty were appropriate. Foley then filed a declaration of rights
action in circuit court.
In his circuit court action, Foley contended, in pertinent part, that he
was not provided with the documentation he requested and that the hearing officer
did not provide a written statement regarding the basis for his determination that
the confidential informant was reliable. In their response, the appellees
acknowledged that the hearing officer did not state why he found the informant to
-3-
be credible. However, they argued that "it is apparent that the information was
deemed reliable by the adjustment officer and the investigator." Furthermore, they
argued that the hearing officer's findings were supported by "the statements of
Officers T. Long and J. Cabrera that the Petitioner voiced his intention to kill staff
and then began throwing objects toward staff." Finally, they noted that the hearing
officer mentioned medical records in his findings, and they concluded that the
hearing officer reviewed Foley's medical records.
In his reply, Foley reiterated his argument that the hearing officer was
required to provide a written statement setting forth the reasons he found the
informant to be reliable. He also correctly noted that there are no statements or
even any references to any statements in the record from Officers T. Long or J.
Cabrera. Finally, he noted that it is unclear what medical records the hearing
officer reviewed.
Based on the preceding, the trial court denied Foley's petition. In
doing so, the court stated that the disciplinary proceedings comported with the
minimal due process and evidentiary requirements set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974), and Superintendent,
Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.
Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985). Furthermore, the court found that
"although the report did not specifically state why the [confidential] information
was deemed reliable, it is apparent from the report that such a finding was made."
It is from this order that Foley appeals.
-4-
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing prison disciplinary proceedings, "[t]he court seeks not to
form its own judgment, but, with due deference, to ensure that the agency's
judgment comports with the legal restrictions applicable to it." Smith v. O'Dea,
939 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Ky. App. 1997). If there is some evidence to support the
outcome, the court should not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings.
Walpole, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S. Ct. at 2774. With these standards in mind, we
analyze the issues raised by Foley on appeal.
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that, because the appellees failed to file a brief,
we could treat that failure as a confession of error and simply reverse the circuit
court's judgment. Kentucky Rule(s) of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.12(8). However,
because the issues raised by Foley are ones that are likely to reoccur, we choose to
address them more fully.
On appeal, Foley argues that the hearing officer's findings are
deficient for two reasons: (1) the hearing officer did not set forth why he found the
informant to be reliable; and (2) prison officials intentionally withheld the medical
facility and cafeteria records he requested. We agree with Foley as to the first
issue and in part as to the second issue.
The circuit court correctly found that, when a disciplinary hearing
may result in loss of good-time credits, the inmate is entitled to
-5-
(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.
Walpole, 472 U.S. at 454, 105 S. Ct. at 2773. The record indicates that prison
authorities gave Foley sufficient notice of the disciplinary charges against him,
therefore meeting the first requirement. Furthermore, Foley was permitted to
testify at the hearing, thus meeting, in part, the second requirement. Finally, the
hearing officer provided a written statement of the evidence he relied on and,
although not detailed, the reasons for the disciplinary action, thus meeting, at least
in part, the third requirement.
However, the proceedings were deficient, in part, with regard to both
the second and third requirements. As to the second requirement, the hearing
officer's written statement indicates that he reviewed "medical reports." On the
audiotape recording, the hearing officer recites the inmate's injuries from what,
apparently, are his medical records. However, there is no discernable mention on
the audiotape recording or any mention on the written statement that the hearing
officer reviewed Foley's medical records regarding his receipt of an insulin
injection on the date of the altercation. Furthermore, the hearing officer does not
mention whether he had been provided with or reviewed the cafeteria records
Foley requested. Foley had a right to request and have the hearing officer review
those records; therefore, the proceedings were deficient to the extent the hearing
-6-
officer did not have or review the records Foley requested. Furthermore, the
hearing officer's written statement was deficient to the extent it did not recite that
the requested records were reviewed or, if not reviewed, explain why not.
As to the third requirement, the hearing officer stated at the hearing
that he was relying on a confidential informant or informants, who he found to be
reliable. However, the hearing officer did not set forth the reasons he determined
the informant(s) to be reliable and, in fact, refused to do so. This failure by the
hearing officer to give the reasons for finding the informant reliable fails to satisfy
the third requirement for two reasons. First, the prison's policies and procedures
manual states that, while evidence from a confidential informant may be used in a
disciplinary hearing, the "[i]nformation shall not be obtained in exchange for the
promise of a favor or preferential treatment." Kentucky Corrections Policies and
Procedures (KCPP) 9.18(II)(A). Therefore, the hearing officer should have, at a
minimum, stated that no promises had been made to the informant(s).
Furthermore, before relying on confidential information, a hearing officer must
determine that the informant is reliable. Reliability can be determined "by a record
of past reliability or by other factors that reasonably convince the adjustment
officer or committee of the confidential informant's reliability." KCPP
9.18(II)(D)(6)(a). In determining reliability, the hearing officer can consider the
frequency with which the informant has provided information, the time period
during which information has been provided, the accuracy of information
provided, or other factors that tend to show reliability. KCPP 9.18(D)(II)(6)(b).
-7-
Once a determination as to reliability has been made, the hearing officer must
include in his report the basis for that finding. KCPP 9.18(D)(II)(7). As noted
above, neither the hearing officer's oral statements at the hearing or his written
statement comply with these requirements.
Second, even if the appellees are not bound by their own regulations,
they are bound by the limits of due process as set by this Court and the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court, in Gilhaus v. Wilson, 734 S.W.2d 808, 810
(Ky. App. 1987), agreed with the Federal District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky that a disciplinary committee must make a determination that a
confidential informant is trustworthy. See Goble v. Wilson, 577 F.Supp. 219 (W.D.
Ky.1983). That requirement can be fulfilled by a statement that the committee
found the informant to be reliable and some reference to the verification procedure
used. Gilhaus, 734 S.W.2d at 810. In Gilhaus, the committee met this
requirement by indicating that "the declarations of the informant[s] were confirmed
by polygraph examinations." Id.
Furthermore, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held
that:
In cases in which prisoner misconduct is found upon
evidence consisting entirely, or even substantially, of the
statement of an investigating officer that he has been told
by confidential informants that the misconduct occurred,
and that the investigator believes the informant to be
reliable, there must be some independent determination
by the committee of the informant's reliability. In such
cases, unless the committee makes an independent
determination about what the facts of the alleged
-8-
misconduct are by deciding, minimally, that the hearsay
information has been supplied by a reliable informant, it
is merely recording the findings made by the
investigating officer who has made a determination about
the informant's reliability, without making any
determination for itself about the informant's reliability
or even the basis for the investigator's opinion that the
informant is reliable. To proceed in that fashion is not
fact finding. It is recordkeeping.
Hensley v. Wilson, 850 F.2d 269, 276 (6th Cir. 1988).
The Court further held that:
A contemporaneous written record must be made of the
evidence relied upon. If, because of efforts to protect
informant anonymity, the evidence in support of
disciplinary action supplied to the inmate fails to meet
the constitutional minimum of “some evidence,” more
detailed evidence, sufficient to meet constitutional
standards, must be placed in a nonpublic record.
Id. at 283.
Reading these opinions together, we believe that a prison disciplinary
committee or hearing officer must, at a minimum, state that the evidence provided
by a confidential informant has been reviewed and has been found to be reliable.
Furthermore, there must be some reasoning supplied to support the determination
of reliability. In the event the committee or hearing officer determines that making
any of these statements would jeopardize the confidential informant, the committee
must at least indicate as much. Herein, the hearing officer stated that he had the
information provided by the investigating officer and that he found the confidential
informant to be reliable. However, he refused to set forth any reasons to support
his finding of reliability, stating that he could not reveal "the information" to Foley.
-9-
The hearing officer had not been asked to reveal the information from the
confidential informant and was not required to do so. He was required to either
give a reason to support his finding of reliability or to state that providing a reason
would jeopardize the informant. He did neither.
Based on the preceding, we hold that the appellees did not provide Foley
with the minimal due process afforded to inmates in prison disciplinary
proceedings. Therefore, we vacate the circuit court's order affirming the prison
disciplinary action against Foley. Furthermore, we remand this matter to the
circuit court with instructions for it to remand to the appellees so that the hearing
officer can provide a reason for his determination of informant reliability. In the
event the appellees have a good faith belief that making a statement regarding the
reason(s) the hearing officer found the informant to be reliable will put the
informant in jeopardy, they must indicate that on the record. Furthermore, the
appellees must make the records Foley requested available to him unless doing so
would jeopardize institutional safety. In that event, the hearing officer must review
the records and indicate in his written statement that he undertook the review and
whether the records confirm or contradict Foley's version of events.
The appellees should note that we are not requiring the hearing officer to
reach a different conclusion.
We recognize that the hearing officer stated that he
had made an independent determination of reliability and that the confidential
information is "some evidence," Hensley, 850 F.2d 269 at 283, sufficient to support
his determination. Furthermore, we recognize that this opinion may appear to
-10-
elevate form over substance, and we further recognize that prisoners are not
entitled to the full panoply of process due non-prisoners. However, prisoners are
entitled to the limited process that is their due and, by providing that process to
them, the number of these appeals may be reduced. If that does not occur, a more
complete record will at least permit the courts to better evaluate these claims on
appeal.
CONCLUSION
The appellees failed to comport with the minimum standards of due process.
Therefore, the circuit court's order denying Foley's petition for declaratory
judgment is reversed and this matter is remanded for additional proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FILED FOR APPELLEES
James Foley, Pro Se
Burgin, Kentucky
-11-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.