Opinion

Larry Junior Ward v. Gene M. Johnson, Warden, Sgt. Gardner, Chairman of Adjustment Committee

  • 690 F.2d 1098
  • 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24970
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 7, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Hall
On the bench
Winter, Butzner, Russell, Widener, Hall, Phillips, Murnaghan, Sprouse, Ervin, Chapman
Cited by
41 cases

stating the Court may have reached a different conclusion if “the plaintiff had been denied absolutely any ‘adversary’ hearing, or if he had been denied any notice of the charge against him, or if he had been denied the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers at the disciplinary hearing”

How later courts described this case

  • stating the Court may have reached a different conclusion if “the plaintiff had been denied absolutely any ‘adversary’ hearing, or if he had been denied any notice of the charge against him, or if he had been denied the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers at the disciplinary hearing”
  • discussing the burden frivolous lawsuits relating to prison disciplinary hearings pose on courts and prison officials
  • “Errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence in a state criminal trial rise[ ] to the level of a constitutional deprivation only if the error is of such magnitude as to deny fundamental fairness.”
  • a prison disciplinary board qualifies for absolute immunity only where the action complained of is of a judicial character

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

As I read the majority opinion, the law of this case is that under the facts presented, the defendant, Gardner, enjoys absolute immunity since he conducted a formal hearing in accordance with the guidelines of Butz v. Economou. I concur wholeheartedly in that determination. However, the opinion speculates that “Perhaps this case would be different if the plaintiff had been denied absolutely any ‘adversary’ hearing or if he had been denied any notice of the charge against him, or if he had been denied the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers at the disciplinary hearing....” This is pure dicta, which adds nothing to the case and seems to be sugar coating for a rule of law that I find is not bitter and needs no sweetening.

I concur, seeking refuge in the hope that the dicta in this case will be recognized as such and treated as unworthy of future consideration.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.