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
MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
What Judge Russell has written concerning qualified immunity compellingly leads to the conclusion that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. As for absolute immunity, the point is a complex one not requiring decision and should be *1114 left for the day when maliciousness is truly present and the question therefore truly arises. I write only to record that I abstain from deciding, as premature, the absolute immunity issue.
Judge Phillips authorizes me to state that he joins in this concurring opinion.