Prisoner misconduct disciplinary proceedings; Due process; Whether the hearing investigator performed an investigation; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Hearing Handbook; Denial of an adjournment; Effect of petitioner being found not guilty of two subsequent alleged misconducts; Administrative law judge (ALJ); Corrections officer (CO)

The court affirmed the circuit court’s opinion and order affirming an ALJ’s finding that petitioner-prisoner “was guilty of a major misconduct violation for disobeying a” CO’s direct order. Petitioner argued “that he was denied due process because the hearing investigator did not perform an investigation.” The court found that given “the little information provided by petitioner and the straightforward nature of the underlying misconduct—disobeying a direct order by refusing to leave segregation and return to the general population—it is not surprising that the report was brief and that the hearing investigator found no further investigation necessary at that time.” As respondent argued “on appeal, the hearing investigator cannot be faulted for failing to interview witnesses that petitioner did not identify. The hearing investigator is meant to assist prisoner’s in gathering evidence and is not an advocate for either party or required to conduct an independent investigation in support of a prisoner’s defense.” Petitioner also argued “that the ALJ erred by failing to adjourn the hearing to investigate witnesses he identified at the misconduct hearing.” The court held that “the ALJ was within his discretion to decline to adjourn the hearing because petitioner did not meaningfully participate in the investigative process.” Petitioner further argued “that the circuit court erred by not considering that he was found not guilty of two subsequent, similar disobeying a direct order misconducts, which” he alleged showed “that he was in fear for his life and justified in disobeying the” CO’s order. That argument was “unpersuasive. Expansion of the record to consider the subsequent misconducts was not warranted, and the ALJ’s decision was supported by the available evidence.” As the circuit court concluded, “on the record before the ALJ at the time of the initial misconduct hearing, there was no dispute that petitioner disobeyed a direct order.” Although he claimed that his fear justified his refusal to comply, petitioner did not provide any “evidence to support his defense beyond his own testimony. When interviewed by the hearing investigator, [he] did not identify witnesses to the alleged threats and did not request any documents to support his claims.” Thus, the record showed “that the ALJ’s finding that petitioner disobeyed a direct order and that [he] was not at significant risk of harm by complying with the order was supported by the competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.”