Adolph Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center

Headline: Prisoner's Due Process Challenge to Disciplinary Action Denied by Third Circuit

Citation:

Court: Third Circuit · Filed: 2026-03-02 · Docket: 24-2990
Published
Outcome: Defendant Win
Impact Score: 30/100 — Low-moderate impact: This case addresses specific legal issues with limited broader application.
Legal Topics: habeas-corpusdue-processprison-disciplinary-actionconfidential-informant

Case Summary

This case involves Adolph Michelin, a federal prisoner, who filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a disciplinary decision made against him. Michelin was found guilty of possessing a weapon, specifically a sharpened piece of metal, after a search of his cell. He argued that his due process rights were violated because the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) relied on an uncorroborated confidential informant statement and that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to deny Michelin's petition. The Court found that the DHO's reliance on the confidential informant's statement, which was corroborated by other evidence (the discovery of the weapon in Michelin's cell), did not violate Michelin's due process rights. The Court also concluded that there was "some evidence" to support the DHO's finding of guilt, which is the standard required for disciplinary decisions in federal prisons. Therefore, Michelin's challenge to the disciplinary action was unsuccessful.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

  1. A disciplinary hearing officer's reliance on a confidential informant's statement, when corroborated by other evidence, does not violate a prisoner's due process rights.
  2. The 'some evidence' standard is sufficient to uphold a prison disciplinary decision, and this standard was met when a weapon was found in the prisoner's cell following an informant's tip.

Entities and Participants

Parties

  • Adolph Michelin (party)
  • Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center (party)
  • ca3 (party)

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (4)

Q: What was this case about?

This case was about a federal prisoner, Adolph Michelin, challenging a prison disciplinary decision through a habeas corpus petition, arguing his due process rights were violated when he was found guilty of possessing a weapon.

Q: What was Michelin's main argument?

Michelin argued that the disciplinary hearing officer improperly relied on an uncorroborated confidential informant statement and that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt.

Q: What was the court's decision?

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Michelin's petition, finding no due process violation and that there was 'some evidence' to support the disciplinary decision.

Q: What standard of evidence is required for prison disciplinary decisions?

The 'some evidence' standard is required, meaning there must be at least some evidence to support the disciplinary hearing officer's finding of guilt.

Case Details

Case NameAdolph Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
Citation
CourtThird Circuit
Date Filed2026-03-02
Docket Number24-2990
Precedential StatusPublished
OutcomeDefendant Win
Impact Score30 / 100
Legal Topicshabeas-corpus, due-process, prison-disciplinary-action, confidential-informant
Jurisdictionfederal

Related Legal Resources

Third Circuit Opinions habeas-corpusdue-processprison-disciplinary-actionconfidential-informant federal Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: habeas-corpusKnow Your Rights: due-processKnow Your Rights: prison-disciplinary-action Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings habeas-corpus Guidedue-process Guide habeas-corpus Topic Hubdue-process Topic Hubprison-disciplinary-action Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This AI-generated analysis of Adolph Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on habeas-corpus or from the Third Circuit: