Background
Rodney Eaves, an inmate at Bent County Correctional Facility, sought permission to obtain a turban-making kit for religious reasons. After his grievance was denied, prison officials received a copy of the grievance form that appeared to contain a falsified response granting his request. Eaves was charged under the Colorado Department of Corrections’ Code of Penal Discipline with Class II forgery and fraud.
At a disciplinary hearing, officials presented the original and altered grievance forms and a written statement from the grievance coordinator. Eaves denied sending the altered form and requested testimony from a faith-program administrator, whom the hearing officer unsuccessfully tried to reach. The hearing officer found Eaves guilty, and the convictions were sustained through administrative review. A magistrate and then the district court rejected Eaves’ C.R.C.P. 106.5 challenge.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that CDOC had authority to discipline Eaves for violations of its internal code; although forgery and fraud may also be crimes under Colorado law, the proceeding was a prison disciplinary matter, not a criminal prosecution.
The court also held that the disciplinary officer’s failure to complete an investigation-report form did not deprive the hearing officer of jurisdiction or violate due process. Eaves received written notice more than 24 hours before the hearing, an opportunity to testify and present a defense, and a written disposition explaining the evidence and reasons for the decision.
The court further upheld the denial of default judgment because counsel timely appeared and answered for both defendants. It declined to consider Eaves’ sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument because he had not raised it in his petition seeking district-court review of the magistrate’s order.
Key Takeaways
- CDOC disciplinary charges are not criminal prosecutions, even when the prohibited conduct resembles a criminal offense.
- A violation of an agency’s own procedural rule does not itself establish a constitutional due-process violation.
- Issues not presented in a C.R.M. 7 petition for district-court review generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of judicial review for Colorado prison disciplinary rulings: courts ask whether officials exceeded their jurisdiction or abused their discretion, and will uphold a decision supported by some evidence absent legal error.
For inmate due-process claims, the opinion emphasizes the core protections of notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a written explanation—not strict compliance with every internal prison procedure.