Clark v. Dannheim

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a hearing officer’s refusal to call a particular witness constituted harmless error where “there [was] no indication or reason to believe that [the witness’s] testimony would have been helpful to [the] plaintiff”
• dismissing state prisoner’s due process claim based on hearing officer’s denial of plaintiffs requests to review certain medical records, and to call DOCS sergeant as a witness, where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by those refusals
• dismissing state prisoner’s due process claim based on the hearing officer’s denial of plaintiffs requests to review certain medical records, and to call DOCS sergeant as a witness, where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result
• dismissing state prisoner’s due process claim based on hearing officer’s denial of plaintiff’s requests to review certain medical records, and to call DOCCS sergeant as a witness, where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by those refusals
• dismissing state prisoner’s due process claim based on hearing officer’s denial of plaintiff’s requests to review certain medical records, and to call a sergeant as a witness, where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by those refusals
• “To establish a procedural due process claim in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing, an inmate must show that he was prejudiced by the alleged procedural errors, in the sense that the errors affected the outcome of the hearing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).