Chief executive officer; responsibilities; duties; discipline of inmates.
(1) The chief executive officer of each facility of the department shall be responsible for the discipline of inmates who reside in such facility. No inmate shall be punished except upon the order of the chief executive officer of the facility, and no punishment shall be imposed otherwise than in accordance with this section.
(2) Except in flagrant or serious cases, punishment for misconduct shall consist of deprivation of privileges. In cases of flagrant or serious misconduct, the chief executive officer may order that an inmate's reduction of term as provided in section 83-1,107 be forfeited or withheld and also that the inmate be confined in disciplinary segregation. During the period of disciplinary segregation, such inmate shall be put on an adequate and healthful diet. An inmate in disciplinary segregation shall be visited at least once every eight hours. No cruel, inhuman, or corporal punishment shall be used on any inmate.
(3) The chief executive officer shall maintain a record of breaches of discipline, of the disposition of each case, and of the punishment, if any, for each such breach. Each breach of discipline shall be entered in the inmate's file, together with the disposition or punishment for the breach.
(4) The chief executive officer may recommend to the director that an inmate who is considered to be incorrigible by reason of frequent intentional breaches of discipline or who is detrimental to the discipline or the morale of the facility be transferred to another facility for stricter safekeeping and closer confinement, subject to the provisions of section 83-176.
(5) The department shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to define the term flagrant or serious misconduct.
Source:Laws 1969, c. 817, § 16, p. 3082; Laws 1972, LB 1499, § 1; R.S.1943, (1987), § 83-185; Laws 1993, LB 31, § 56; Laws 1995, LB 371, § 26; Laws 1997, LB 364, § 22; Laws 2015, LB598, § 34.
An administrative disciplinary proceeding in which a prisoner loses good time for escape does not place him in jeopardy so a subsequent conviction for escape does not constitute double jeopardy. State v. Maddox, 190 Neb. 361, 208 N.W.2d 274 (1973).
Prisoner's statutory right to good time may not be taken away from him without following minimum appropriate due process procedures. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
Prison authorities had no right, absent statutory authority, to prescribe and enforce regulations authorizing forfeiture of money discovered in the possession of inmates as a punitive measure and their actions in so doing violated due process. Sell v. Parratt, 548 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1977).
Prison authorities violated rights of inmates by subjecting them to substantial penalties for relatively minor offenses; not only was revocation of certain privileges contrary to statute, but also it was arbitrary and capricious. McDonnell v. Wolff, 483 F.2d 1059 (8th Cir. 1973).
Fighting and threatening an officer's life would amount to flagrant or serious misconduct for which statutory good time may be withheld. Certain activities which would not, or which are best left to judgment of adjustment committee, are outlined. McDonnell v. Wolff, 342 F.Supp. 616 (D. Neb. 1972).
The reduction of sentence for good behavior and faithful performance of duties is a statutory right and cannot be eliminated or withheld for failure to perform work which a prisoner is unable to do because of physical infirmity not caused by his misconduct, nor as punishment except for flagrant or serious misconduct. Sawyer v. Sigler, 320 F.Supp. 690 (D. Neb. 1970).