asked to call any witnesses at the hearing but defendants prevented him from doing so. Thus, he has not shown a material fact in dispute with respect to whether defendants prevented him from calling witnesses in his defense. In Gwinn, 354 F.3d at 1219, we held that an impartial decision maker was necessary to comply with due process under the Wolff standards. A lack of neutrality may occur if the decision maker was involved in the event at issue or if the decision was imposed for an improper purpose. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1446 (10th Cir.1996). Mr. Firth contends that the termination review panel upheld his termination from the SOTMP for an improper purpose, but he fails to point to any evidence that the panel or any of its members had an improper motive. See id. (<HOLDING>). Under Wolff, an inmate must also be provided
holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition holding that improper motive is element of bad faith holding inmates evidence failed to prove that decision maker had an improper motive holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent