John Melnik v. James Dzurenda

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, in the context of a prison disciplinary hearing, that a prisoner had a due process right to access evidence to be used against him
• noting that prison officials may limit a prisoner’s right to access evidence for a disciplinary hearing if they have a “legitimate penological reason” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “If a prisoner must be allowed to present 13 evidence in his defense [under Wolff], it necessarily follows that he must have some right to 14 prepare for that presentation.”
• a prisoner’s right to review evidence for a disciplinary hearing may be constrained by a 1 Insofar as Mays relies on BOP Program Statements, his allegations are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011
• discussing application of Wolff to disciplinary 5 proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).