Eighth Circuit
Dible v. Scholl, 506 F.3d 1106, 1111 (8th Cir. 2007) (“When Dible’s disciplinary notice was issued, 29 years had passed since the Supreme Court first declared what due process required in a prison disciplinary notice. . . . Twenty-nine years is enough time that ‘a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.’”).
Diercks v. Durham, 959 F.2d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “the law was clearly established that a charging officer should not sit in judgment on her own complaint in disciplinary proceedings”).
Graham v. Baughman, 772 F.2d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 1985) (“Wolff, decided some four years prior to the prison officials’ actions here, clearly established that an inmate had at least a qualified right to call witnesses and that this right could not be arbitrarily denied. We believe that defendants should have known that a one and a half minute hearing with no opportunity for Graham to present the substance of the eyewitness testimony, either at the hearing or at some reasonably early later point, would violate his right to have a meaningful opportunity to present his defense.”).