Is a prison assistant's failure to interview an inmate's witnesses for a disciplinary hearing a violation of the inmate's right to access their witnesses?

Due process principles require prison authorities "to provide assistance to an inmate in marshaling evidence and presenting a defense when he is faced with disciplinary charges." Eng v. Coughlin , 858 F.2d 889, 897 (2d Cir. 1988). When the inmate is confined before the hearing, "the duty of assistance is greater because the inmate's ability to help himself is reduced." Id. Such required assistance includes "gathering evidence, obtaining documents and relevant tapes, and interviewing witnesses." Id. at 898.

This constitutional obligation is violated by a "failure to ... interview an inmate's requested witnesses without assigning a valid reason." Fox v. Coughlin , 893 F.2d 475, 478 (2d Cir. 1990). As with the failure to make witnesses available at a disciplinary hearing, "[t]he burden is not upon the inmate to prove the [assistant's] conduct was arbitrary and capricious, but upon the [assistant] to prove the rationality of his position." Id. Moreover, "the assistance must be provided in good faith and in the best interests of the inmate." Eng , 858 F.2d at 898. For instance, "an assistant ... who is requested to interview a group of prisoners too numerous to interview must attempt to determine independently who the most relevant witnesses might be and to interview them." Id.