Legal Opinion

Boles v. BARTRUFF

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided August 6, 2009No. 08CA0069PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge ROMAN.

In this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action, plaintiff, Russell M. Boles, appeals the trial court's judgment affirming a prison disciplinary conviction. He asserts that he was denied due process at his disciplinary hearing, that the evidence supporting his conviction was insufficient, that the search of his cell was invalid, and that he was not provided discovery. We affirm.

I. Background

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). Based on the discovery of two prescription pills in a dental floss container on a shelf in his assigned…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Onofre T. Serrano v. S.W. FrancisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Boles v. BARTRUFFColorado Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Farrow v. CDOCColorado Court of Appeals · 2024
  3. Ruffin v. CDOCColorado Court of Appeals · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API