Carter v. State

Bradley Carter (Carter) appeals the district court’s denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Carter argues: (1) his due process rights were violated when he was punished for verbal abuse under prison disciplinary rule 26, (2) rule 26 is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) his First Amendment rights were violated when he was punished for verbal abuse under the facts of this case. We affirm.

I.Background Facts and Proceedings.

On December 3, 1992, correctional officer Wessels reported Carter had violated several prison disciplinary rules. Wessels detailed in his report an incident…