were told to write an, an account of cases on inmate participants involving an altercation, you don’t have anything else substantiating there? A: No, sir. The hearing officer then asked Hudson’s counsel if he had any questions for Officer Goolsby; he answered no, ending the testimony. Hudson was present at the hearing to offer his defense and question witnesses. Neither Hudson nor his counsel asked Officer Goolsby any questions, despite being given the opportunity to do so. Hudson cannot now impugn the evidentia-ry value of Officer Goolsby’s testimony. As the Regional Director noted in affirming the hearing officer’s decision, “Determining the believability of the testimonies presented at the hearing is left to the discretion of the hearing officer.” See also Rabalais, 659 F.2d at 545 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the hearing officer, after
holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation holding required changes in prison policy not burdensome in light of the overall cost of operating the prison holding that state prison officials enjoy wide discretion in regards to a prison boards finding of guilt holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments