Watson v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Petitioner appeals from a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found to have violated a rule of prohibited conduct.

Petitioner first challenges the use of confidential statements from informants on the grounds that there were insufficient indicia of reliability and credibility of such informants.1

It is clear that in the interest of personal or institutional safety, the disciplinary committee may note omissions of evidence in its statement of reasons for the action taken, see OAR 291-40-115; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 US 539, 565, 94 S Ct 2963, 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974). Because the excluded…