Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL 2 WANDA E. HOFMANN (014805) 3 Assistant Attorney General 177 North Church Avenue, Suite 1105 4 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1114 (520) 628-6044 · Fax (520) 628-6050 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants Dodge, Dolce, Schriro, Pierce, Rabideau, Britton, Walker, Thelen and v. CARL B. DODGE; T. DOLCE; C. LARSEN; SANDRA WALKER; DORA SCHRIRO; KELLY PIERCE; J. THELEN; J. RABIDEAU; BRITTON, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CHARLES McMANUS, Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: STATEMENT OF FACTS No. CV03-2327 PHX-MHM (JI)

18 Larsen present the following facts from the record in support of their Motion for Summary 19 Judgment filed this date, as provided under Rules of Procedure of the United States 20 District of Arizona 7.2 and 56.1 and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. Plaintiff Charles McManus entered the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) on July 5, 1990 to serve sentences that expire in 2094. (Affidavit of Audrey Burke--Exhibit A, attached.) 2. McManus was transferred to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in April 2001 from the maximum custody Special Management Unit. (Id.)

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 1 of 15

1 Defendant Dodge 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Defendant Carl Dodge was a Correctional Officer III detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (First Amended Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner dated June 30, 2004, Complaint, at 2; Exhibit B--Affidavit of Carl Dodge.) 4. Inmate McManus alleges that Officer Dodge: a. "failed to accept an existing medical condition of the Plaintiff when he issued a directive that the Plaintiff is to violate the medical order, if the Plaintiff does not, then punish the Plaintiff prior to appearing before disciplinary." (Count I, Complaint at 4.)

5. Officer Dodge served at the Meadows Unit from about July 2002 to October 2003. His duties included assigning jobs to inmates and determining whether they were entitled to dispensation from work or special privileges for medical reasons. (Dodge Affidavit.)

14 Defendant Dolce 15 16 17 18 19 6. Defendant Todd Dolce was a Correctional Officer III detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2.) 7. Inmate McManus makes no claims against Officer Dolce. (See Counts I, II, III and IV of Complaint.)

20 Defendant Larsen 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. Defendant Cecelia Larsen was a Correctional Sergeant detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2.) 9. Inmate McManus alleges that Sergeant Larsen: a. "failed to forward a timely disciplinary appeal submitted by the Plaintiff on May 4, 2003. She failed to notify the [unintelligible] sections within the unit of her decision of appeal dated 7-2-03 to me. At this point, she failed to notify
Document 54

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

2

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 2 of 15

1 2 3 4 Defendant Walker 5

the [unintelligible] sections within the unit that disciplinary case number 03-A16-0782 was being dismissed. Disciplinary case number 03-A16-0782 was [unintelligible] for dismissal shortly after 5-4-03" which "has caused all the disciplinary sanctions to be executed to their maximum." (Count II, Complaint at 5.)

10. Defendant Sandra Walker was the Deputy Warden detailed to the Meadows Unit of 6 the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2.) 7 11. Inmate McManus alleges that Deputy Warden Walker: 8 a. 9 10 11 12 b. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12. Section 6.14.2.1.1 of the ADC disciplinary policy, affords the warden or deputy warden 20 days to review an inmate's appeal of a disciplinary decision: 6.14.2 Appeals of DHO Decisions 6.14.2.1 Step One: Inmates may appeal DHO decisions to the Warden, Deputy Warden or Administrator within five workdays of the disciplinary hearing. Inmates shall submit the appeal through the Coordinator, using the Appeal of Disciplinary Charge, ADC Form #30000011. The Warden, 3 c. "failed to properly address the violation of being unable to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing in the response to my disciplinary appeal. A violation of IMP 103.3.1 section 6.14.2.1.1 She also failed to recognize the Plaintiff's limited right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing as a constitutional due process right" thus "the sanctions imposed against the Plaintiff were executed to their maximum" (Count III, Complaint at 6A); and failed to take corrective action once she was apprised that the Plaintiff was still being punished months following the dismissal of the disciplinary action, this, although she did have the authority to do so as the deputy warden" thus "Plaintiff has suffered from being excessively punished" (Count IV, Complaint at 7). "has full knowledge of the violation; as they have been addressed to her by the Plaintiff on a number of occasions. She has taken the position to ignore each one and took absolutely no action to correct any of them, although she had the authority to do so" which "has caused all the disciplinary sanctions to be executed to their maximum" (Count II, Complaint at 5);

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 3 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Deputy Warden or Administrator shall: 6.14.2.1.1 Consider only whether the disciplinary process was followed, some evidence was relied upon to support the findings, and the sanctions are appropriate based on the facts; 6.14.2.1.2 Review the appeal and provide a written response to the inmate and the DHO within 20 calendar days. The response shall state specific reasons for the decision and shall be signed and dated; and 6.14.2.1.3 Forward the response to the inmate through the Coordinator.

9 (Dodge Affidavit, Attachment 2; emphasis supplied.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 13. Records indicate that Ricky Lewis was the deputy warden at Meadows in May 2003, when McManus was found guilty of disciplinary violation in ADC Disciplinary Case No. 03-A16-0782 and was referred for reclassification. (Complaint at 5A; Burke Affidavit, Attachment 3.) 14. At a hearing on April 24, 2004, McManus was found guilty in ADC Disciplinary Case 04-A19-0157 for refusing to cell with another inmate. McManus admitted that he disobeyed an order to cell with another inmate. Deputy Warden Walker upheld the decision on May 17, 2004 and Judge Robert Myers upheld the decision on July 13, 2004. (Dodge Affidavit, Attachment 3.1)

19 Defendant Schriro 20 21 22 23 24 25
1

15. Defendant Dora Schriro was the Acting Director of ADC beginning on July 1, 2003 and served in that capacity until May 26, 2004, when her permanent appointment as Director was confirmed. (Exhibit A; Complaint at 2A.) 16. Inmate McManus alleges that Acting Director/Director Schriro: a. "was apprised of the violation on more than one occasion by the Plaintiff, but failed to take any corrective action. This

Attachment 3 to Carl Dodge's Affidavit--ADC Disciplinary Case No. 04-A1926 0157 paperwork--is incorrectly referred to as "Attachment 4" in the final paragraph of the Affidavit.
Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI Document 54

4

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 4 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

although she does have the authority to do so as the director of the Arizona Department of Corrections" which "has caused all the imposed disciplinary sanctions to be executed to their maximum." (Count II, Complaint at 5A.) 17. The ADC Central Classification Office oversees and determines inmate securityrisk scores and movement throughout ADC. (Burke Affidavit and Attachments 3 and 5.) 18. Classification records indicate that Director Schriro did not participate in any decision to reclassify and transfer McManus to the Rynning Unit in 2003. (Id.) 19. Disciplinary documents indicate that Director Schriro did not participate in McManus's appeal to the Central Office in ADC Disciplinary Case 04-A19-0157. (Dodge Affidavit, Attachment 3.)

12 Defendant Pierce 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. 20. Defendant Kelly Pierce was a Correctional Captain detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2A.) 21. Inmate McManus alleges that Disciplinary Hearing Officer Captain Pierce: a. "was apprised of the violation when she rendered her decision in disciplinary case no. 03-A16-0782, as the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on May 2, 2003. She had before her [unintelligible] reviewed it personally, the Plaintiff's discipline record, but failed to observe the err [sic] by Defendant C. Larsen and subsequently correct it" which "has caused all the imposed disciplinary sanctions to be executed to their maximum" (Count II, Complaint at 5A); and "as the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) failed to allow the Plaintiff his limited right to call witnesses at the disciplinary hearing in disciplinary case number 04-A19-0157. And she failed to include a statement as to why she denied them on the disciplinary report on her findings"; "had the authority to postpone the disciplinary hearing once she learned of my witnesses, but failed to do so" which "has caused the Plaintiff to be adjudicated guilty and imposed sanctions to be executed to their maximum" (Count III, Complaint at 6).

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

5

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 5 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

22. ADC Disciplinary Case No. 03-A16-0782 was dismissed on appeal. (Complaint; Burke Affidavit, Attachment 4.) 23. Documents pertaining to ADC Disciplinary Case No. 03-A16-0782 have been expunged from ADC files as the case was dismissed on appeal. (See Dodge Affidavit, ¶ 20.) 24. On April 24, 2004, Captain Pierce found McManus guilty in ADC Disciplinary Case 04-A19-0157 for refusing to cell with another inmate at a hearing at which McManus admitted that he disobeyed an order to cell with another inmate. McManus appealed the decision and it was upheld at both appellate levels. (Dodge Affidavit, Attachment 3.)

11 Defendant Thelen 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendant Rabideau 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. Defendant Judith Rabideau was a Correctional Officer III detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2A.) 28. Inmate McManus alleges that Officer Rabideau: a. "was apprised of the violation on more than one occasions by the Plaintiff, the failed to take any corrective action, this, although she did have the authority to recommend corrective 6 25. Defendant Jennifer Thelen was a Correctional Officer III detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2A.) 26. Inmate McManus alleges that Officer Thelen: a. "was apprised of the violation in a telephonic conversation, on July 24, 2003, but failed to take immediate corrective action, this, although she did have the authority to take corrective action as the correctional officer III of classification" which "has caused all the imposed disciplinary sanctions to be executed to their maximum." (Count II, Complaint at 5B.)

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 6 of 15

1 2 3 Defendant Britton 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

action be taken" which "has caused all the disciplinary sanctions to be executed to their maximum." (Count II, Complaint at 5B.)

29. Defendant Joseph Britton was a Correctional Officer II detailed to the Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona. (Complaint at 2B.) 30. Inmate McManus alleges that Officer Britton: a. "failed to comply with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director's Order 803, also referred to as IMP 103.3.1, Inmate Disciplinary System, section, 6.8.2.2.2, interview inmate and staff witnesses. He also failed to include the witness statements within the package of papers to the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO)" which "caused the Plaintiff to be denied his limited right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing." (Count III, Complaint at 6A.)

31. ADC disciplinary policy provides: 6.8 Investigation of the Charge 6.8.1 The Coordinator shall initiate an objective investigation of the charge. The investigation shall be completed without unreasonable delay. Any delay at any stage must be explained in the respective section of the Disciplinary Report. 6.8.2 The investigating officer shall: 6.8.2.1 Obtain the inmate's version of the offense and contact the charging officer and may contact any other staff members or inmates who have information pertaining to the allegation and the charge; 6.8.2.2 Ask if the inmate wants to request any material witnesses and: 6.8.2.2.1 Document in the Report if the inmate has no witnesses; 6.8.2.2.2 Interview inmate and staff witnesses, if names of witnesses are given; and, if appropriate, have the witness complete an Inmate Discipline System Witness Statement, ADC Form #30000005; and 7

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 7 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6.8.2.2.3 Include a statement if inmate or staff witnesses were not contacted. 6.8.2.3 Not include opinions of the innocence or guilt of the charged inmate in the Report; and 6.8.2.4 Sign and date the Report. 6.8.3 The charged investigating officer with: inmate shall provide the

6.8.3.1 A summary of the expected testimony of a desired witness, as a condition for that witness being called; and 6.8.3.2 Any questions the inmate wants to be asked of a witness at a hearing.

10 (Dodge Affidavit, Attachment 2, § 6.8; emphasis added.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 32. Officer Britton served as the Investigating Officer in ADC Disciplinary Case No. 04-A19-0157. After Officer Bellaspica filed an Information Report on April 15, 2004 reporting that McManus refused to cell with his assigned African-American cellmate at the Meadows Complex Detention Unit and that there were no reported issues between the inmates, and then issued McManus a disciplinary infraction notice ("ticket"), Officer Britton interviewed McManus. McManus admitted

refusing to cell with the African-American inmate and offered no explanation why he refused the order to cell. (Dodge Affidavit, Attachment 3.)

19 Injuries alleged 20 21 22 23 Count II (Sergeant Larsen, Deputy Warden Walker, Director Schriro, Captain 24 Pierce, Officer Thelen, Officer Rabideau): 25 b. 26 "disciplinary sanctions that should not have existed" which "included being transferred to a higher custody unit, thus subjecting the Plaintiff to a substantial reduction in privileges
Document 54

33. Inmate McManus alleges the following injury: Count I (Officer Dodge): a. "was punished prior to being adjudicated guilty of any charge" (Complaint at 4);

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

8

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 8 of 15

1 2 3

that the Plaintiff would otherwise have; this was for some 190 days; disciplinary isolation; loss of privileges; extra duty, meaning work without pay; etc. all after 5-4-03" (Complaint at 5-5A); Count III (Captain Pierce, Officer Britton, Deputy Warden Walker):

4 c. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 34. To compensate him for Count I, Plaintiff McManus seeks damages of $500,000 and punitive damages of $7,000,000; for Counts II, III and IV, McManus demands $81,000,000 in damages and one-hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000) in punitive damages, plus his costs. (Complaint at 8.) "disciplinary sanctions that should not have existed" (Complaint at 6); and

Count IV (Deputy Warden Walker): d. "being excessively punished . . . This has been going on some 77 days, thus far" (Complaint at 7-7A).

13 Background information 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9 35. On April 4, 2001, McManus was transferred from Special Management Unit I, a maximum--Level 5--prison to Meadows Unit, a Level 3 facility. Both prisons are within the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona (ASPCEyman. (Burke Affidavit.) 36. The ADC operates ten prison complexes throughout Arizona. Each complex is comprised of several prison units that vary in custody designation, rated on a oneto-five scale. Level-5 units are the most secure prison facilities, used to house the inmates who have been determined to require the greatest degree of oversight, while lower level prisons, such as Level-2, house inmates with less intensive security needs. (Id.) 37. The ADC Inmate Classification System--governed by ADC Department Order No. 801--rates inmates' security risks and other relevant factors on a one-to-five scale.

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 9 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Five describes the highest custody and security level, which is assigned to inmates who pose the greatest security risk. (Id.)
38. To determine appropriate placement in ADC, inmates undergo a classification

review when they enter ADC and every 180 days thereafter; they may also be referred for classification review by a disciplinary hearing officer if found guilty of a major violation of the Inmate Disciplinary Rules. (Id.) 39. Inmate housing locations, work assignments, programming options and related security and operational decisions are based on inmates' Correctional Classification Profile (CCP). Classification specialists assemble a list of ten

numerical scores, each assigned to a factor relevant to an inmate's placement within ADC. The primary scores (P/I) relate to security: Public Risk (i.e., danger an inmate poses to the population outside the prison) and Institutional Risk (prison staff and other inmates). Other factors considered are medical needs, mental health needs, educational needs, vocational training needs, work skill needs, alcohol/drug abuse treatment needs, sex offense treatment needs, and proximity to residence needs. (Id.) 40. Under policy, inmates may be assigned to prison facilities at or above their classification (security-risk) scores. (Id.) 41. The classification-review process begins when inmates appear at a hearing before the ICC (Institutional Classification Committee), at which they are permitted to testify. Based on specified criteria, the ICC recommends P and I score adjustment (or maintenance) and whether, and if so where, the inmate should be transferred. (Id.) 42. The unit deputy warden reviews the ICC's recommendation and agrees or disagrees. (Id.) 43. The ADC Central Classification Office in Phoenix--which oversees inmate 10

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 10 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

movement throughout the system and keeps track of available bedspace and other relevant data--ultimately decides if an inmate's security risk scores will be adjusted and whether and where to transfer him. (Id.) 44. Under the ADC Classification System policy, inmates may appeal the final classification decision (but not the ICC's or deputy warden's recommendations). (Id.) 45. The Meadows Unit of ASPC-Eyman, a Level 3 prison, houses approximately 1,000 male inmates and operates on a pass system. Inmates reside in dormitories that each house about 150 offenders, with six runs in each housing about 25 inmates. (Id.) 46. The dormitory living areas in Level 3 units, such as Meadows, are operated under controlled movement. Inmates only may leave their housing unit to participate in scheduled activities, which include going to the dining hall for meals, outside for recreation, to job assignments, educational classes and other programming, and to medical and dental visits. The dormitory and run doors are secured and monitored by the control-room officer twenty-four hours a day. (Id.) 47. The Rynning Unit, a Level 4 facility at ASPC-Eyman, also operates under the controlled movement system; inmates are permitted to leave their housing areas with a pass to attend meals, report to work, classes and programming. The primary difference between Rynning and Meadows is that Meadows inmates live in 30dormitories while at Rynning, inmates live in two-man cells. (Id.) 48. On May 22, 2002, McManus was transferred to the Meadows Detention Unit (CDU), a maximum level (5) facility, for disciplinary reasons. (Id.) 49. On June 29, 2002, McManus was transferred back to Meadows. (Id.) 50. On June 18, 2003, McManus to the Complex Detention Unit. (Id.) 51. On June 27, 2003, McManus was transferred back to Meadows. (Id.) 11

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 11 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

52. On July 31, 2003, McManus was transferred to the Rynning Unit of ASPC-Eyman, a Level 4 prison facility. (Id.) 53. On January 29, 2004, McManus was transferred back to Meadows. (Id.) 54. On April 15, 2004, McManus returned to the Complex Detention Unit where he was housed until August 3, 2004, when he was returned to Meadows. (Id.) 55. On August 13, 2004, McManus was transferred to the maximum-security Special Management Unit II, also within ASPC-Eyman. (Id.) 56. On January 24, 2005, McManus was transferred to the Rynning Unit. (Id.) 57. On January 28, 2005, McManus was transferred to the Complex Detention Unit. (Id.) 58. On July 6, 2005, McManus was transferred to Meadows Unit. (Id.) 59. On August 2, 2005, McManus returned to the Complex Detention Unit. (Id.) 60. After returning to Meadows on September 19, 2005, McManus was again confined in the Complex Detention Unit until September 30, when he returned to Meadows. (Id.) 61. Under statute and prison policy, ADC inmates must work if able. Affidavit.) 62. Workers are assigned to jobs at the prison under the ADC Inmate Work Incentive Pay Program (WIPP), which is governed by ADC Department Order No. 903.02. (Id., Attachment 1--pertinent portions of ADC Department Order No. 903, Inmate Work Activities policy, §§ 903.01, 903.02.) 63. Under WIPP, inmates can apply for jobs that they are interested in and qualified for. The WIPP Coordinator "shall assess the inmate's experience and skill level and assign the inmate to a work assignment." (Id. at § 903.02, sub-§ 1.7.) 64. The inmate-work policy addresses situations in which an inmate has physical limitations that may preclude particular work assignments: "Wardens, Deputy Wardens and Administrators shall ensure that: The Duty/Special Needs Order,
Document 54

(Dodge

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

12

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 12 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Form 1101-60P, is completed in accordance with Department Order #1104, for any inmates having work limitations." (Id. at § 903.01, sub-§ 1.1.8.) 65. Department Order #1104 authorizes medical personnel to issue Duty/Special Needs Orders to inmates who demonstrate a need for special accommodation because of medical needs. It is the inmate's responsibility to request a special-needs order and to show it to work supervisors, security personnel and other prison staff to verify his special needs. (Dodge Affidavit.) 66. As an exception to the general privacy afforded medical records, the WIPP Coordinator is authorized to obtain the necessary information from prison medical professionals to determine if an inmate is qualified for a particular job. For

instance, the WIPP Coordinator checks with the medical unit personnel for clearance to work in the prison kitchens. (Dodge Affidavit.) 67. If an inmate has physical limitations that he believes preclude particular work assignments, he must obtain supporting documentation from medical personnel for special treatment. (Dodge Affidavit.) 68. Refusal to work undermines prison discipline and operations. Inmates who refuse to work are subject to discipline under the ADC Inmate Disciplinary Rules. (Id.) 69. The ADC disciplinary process for major violations of the disciplinary rules is as follows: a. When a prison official believes that an inmate has violated one of the disciplinary rules of behavior, he writes a Disciplinary Report, which is reviewed by his shift supervisor, and then submitted to the Coordinator of Discipline. The inmate is notified of the pending charge on a form that identifies the specific charge and alleged factual basis for it, and the hearing date, which is scheduled within seven days from filing the violation, unless postponed; b. The Coordinator initiates an objective investigation of the charge; permits the inmate to identify witnesses and draft written questions for them; and
Document 54

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

13

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 13 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

determines if the inmate requires staff assistance in preparation for and at the hearing; c. A hearing is conducted by a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO), a Captain whose primary responsibility is disciplinary proceedings, as opposed to other duties in the prison unit that would entail interaction with inmates; d. At the hearing, the inmate defending against the infraction charge is allowed to present documentary evidence and the written testimony of witnesses, as well as his own statement; e. If the DHO finds the inmate guilty of a major infraction, he documents the evidentiary basis for his decision, metes out penalties, which may include a recommendation for the loss of earned release credits (a punishment that only the Director can impose), loss of privileges, extra duty, referral to the Classification Committee for review, etc. The DHO also advises the inmate of his right to appeal the decision and forwards the results to the Deputy Warden; f. The inmate may appeal the decision to the Deputy Warden of his unit, and if still dissatisfied, to the Director of ADC.

16 (Dodge Affidavit.) 17 70. McManus was afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as two

18 levels of appeal, in both of his subject disciplinary cases. (Complaint; Dodge Affidavit 19 Attachment 3.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14 s/Wanda E. Hofmann WANDA E. HOFMANN Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12 day of October, 2005.

TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 14 of 15

1 COPY of the foregoing mailed this 12 day of October, 2005 to: 2 3 Charles McManus #79938 ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit 4 P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232 5 CBailey 6 Secretary, Attorney General's Office
IDS05-0022 / 927324

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 15

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 54

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 15 of 15