Opinion
No. 4-784 / 04-0619
Filed December 22, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Thomas M. Horan, Judge.
William Dible filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming the district court improperly denied his request for relief from prison disciplinary action. WRIT ANNULLED.
William Dible, Anamosa, appellant pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristin Ensign, Assistant Attorney General for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
In July 2003 William Dible received notice that he had allegedly violated prison disciplinary rules number 3, threats or intimidation, and 25, assault, while at the Sioux City Work Release Facility. The notice stated, "Based on confidential information received by the facility from two sources, Dible is charged with the cited violations. Dible has threatened and choked a citizen of the State of Iowa." After a hearing, the prison disciplinary committee stated that based upon confidential information it found Dible guilty of violating these two rules. Dible was reclassified for prison and lost sixty days of good time.
After exhausting his administrative remedies, Dible filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming he was denied due process during the hearing. The State filed a motion for summary judgment. Dible also filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for in camera review of the confidential information. The district court reviewed the confidential information. The court granted the State's motion for summary judgment and denied Dible's motion. Dible filed a petition for writ of certiorari.
II. Standard of Review
Because this case involves a prisoner's claim that he was disciplined in violation of his constitutional rights, we review his claim in light of the totality of the circumstances upon which the postconviction court's ruling was made. Mark v. State, 556 N.W.2d 152, 153 (Iowa 1996). This is functionally equivalent to de novo review. Risdal v. State, 573 N.W.2d 261, 263 (Iowa 1998).
III. Adequacy of Notice
Dible claims the disciplinary notice in this case was constitutionally defective. Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prison officials must give a prisoner subject to discipline adequate notice of the charges against him. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2978, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 936 (1974). Generally, the notice must apprise the prisoner of the time, place, and nature of the alleged activity. Backstrom v. Iowa Dist. Court, 508 N.W.2d 705, 708 (Iowa 1993).
Prison officials may delete some information if disclosure of the information would threaten the security of the institution. James v. State, 541 N.W.2d 864, 871 (Iowa 1995). "For example, prison officials sometimes rely on confidential informants for incriminating information; revelation of certain names or facts may lead the prisoners charged with infractions to retaliate against the informants." Backstrom, 508 N.W.2d at 708. If information in the notice is too specific, the identity of confidential informants may be disclosed. Key v. State, 577 N.W.2d 637, 640 (Iowa 1998). If confidential information is deleted, this fact must be stated in the disciplinary notice. Id.
Here, the disciplinary notice clearly stated that it was based on confidential information. The notice stated the alleged acts, threatening and choking. More specific notice would have revealed the confidential sources. We find the notice was sufficient under due process principles.
Dible also claims the disciplinary notice was inadequate because it stated there were two confidential sources, and he believes there were actually three sources. As we have noted, the disciplinary notice was not required to inform Dible of how many confidential sources it had, and we find Dible was not denied his due process rights because the notice stated there were two confidential sources.
IV. Confidential Summary
Dible contends he was denied due process because the prison disciplinary committee failed to prepare a written confidential summary. Dible's argument is based on speculation because the State has refused to discuss this confidential information with him. We will also not discuss what is in the confidential information in this case. All that is required is a record for a fair method of review. See Niday v. State, 353 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1984).
We annul the writ of certiorari.