§ 93.10. Inmate discipline.
(a) Rules which define expectations and prohibitions for inmate behavior will be established by the Department and disseminated to the inmate population. There shall be two classes of misconduct charges, Class I and Class II.
(1) Inmates found guilty of Class I misconduct charges may be subjected to one or more of the following sanctions:
(i) Reduction of the classification of the misconduct to a Class II and any sanction permitted for Class II misconducts.
(ii) A sanction permitted for Class II misconducts, without change in class of misconduct.
(iii) Change of cell assignment, including placement in the restricted housing unit or restrictive confinement in a general population cell for a period not to exceed 90 days for any one misconduct charge.
(iv) Change of program level.
(2) Inmates found guilty of Class II misconducts may be subjected to one or more of the following sanctions:
(i) Reprimand.
(ii) Suspension of privileges for a specified period of time.
(iii) Payment of the fair value of property lost or destroyed or for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct.
(iv) Change of cell assignment excluding placement in the restricted housing unit.
(v) Change, suspension or removal from job.
(b) Written procedures which conform to established principles of law for inmate discipline including the following will be maintained by the Department and disseminated to the inmate population:
(1) Written notice of charges.
(2) Hearing before an impartial hearing examiner or an informal resolution process for charges specified by the Department in the Department of Corrections Inmate Handbook, or any Department document that is disseminated to inmates. The informal resolution process is described in DC-ADM 801—Inmate Discipline. The process gives inmates the option to meet with staff to resolve a misconduct rather than proceed with a hearing.
(3) Opportunity for the inmate to tell his story and to present relevant evidence.
(4) Assistance from an inmate or staff member at the hearing if the inmate is unable to collect and present evidence effectively.
(5) Written statement of the decision and reasoning of the hearing body, based upon the preponderance of the evidence.
(6) Opportunities to appeal the misconduct decision in accordance with procedures in the Department of Corrections Inmate Handbook.
Authority The provisions of this § 93.10 amended under section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 186).
Source The provisions of this § 93.10 adopted February 17, 1984, effective February 18, 1984, 14 Pa.B. 534; amended December 21, 2001, effective December 22, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 6932; amended April 15, 2005, effective April 16, 2005, 35 Pa.B. 2279. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (286433) to (286434) and (296515).
Notes of Decisions Evidence
Although inmate did not receive a full investigatory report, a misconduct report provided the inmate with sufficient information from which the inmate could prepare a defense and therefore the inmate’s right to call witnesses and present evidence in the inmate’s behalf was not violated. Mays v. Fulcomer, 552 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Review
The Board’s decision to rescind a previously issued grant of parole was entitled to the same deference as a denial of parole and was therefore nonreviewable. Johnson v. Board of Probation and Parole, 532 A.2d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Garnishment
The Department of Corrections had the authority to withdraw funds for medical restitution from an inmate’s account, where the inmate was found guilty of misconduct for his involvement in a fight with another inmate, and then was found guilty of misconduct for assaulting a correctional officer. Anderson v. Horn, 723 A.2d 254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
To the extent that plaintiff, an inmate, claimed that prison authorities had no legal right to assess prisoners for the damage caused in a riot, the plaintiff’s claim was of dubious merit. Requiring restitution by an inmate convicted of a misconduct of the ‘‘fair value of property lost or destroyed or for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct’’ was authorized under this regulation. King v. Lehman, 65 F.3d 162 (1995).
The garnishment of an inmate’s prison account was an appropriate way to enforce a restitution requirement and frequently may be the only practical means of doing so. King v. Lehman, 65 F.3d 162 (1995).
Garnishment of an inmate’s prison account was an appropriate way to enforce a restitution requirement and frequently may be the only practical means of doing so. As a practical matter, the imposition of restitution in a situation where the prisoner was one of the ring leaders in a riot constituted no more than a requirement that the inmate work-off some of the expenses incurred by the taxpayers because of the riotous, destructive conduct. King v. Lehman, 65 F.3d 162 (1995).
Constitutionality
Notwithstanding the inapplicability of the void—for vagueness doctrine to the inmate disciplinary policy, the court found that a person of ordinary intelligence could decipher the nature of the misconducts of the inmates so the policy was not void for vagueness with respect to them. Melton v. Beard, 981 A.2d 361, 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
