A search in LexisNexis finds the following case:

"CAROL CROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JANICE WARNE, individually and as Warden of the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; CAPTAIN WOOLEY, individually and in her capacity as Captain at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; LIEUTENANT CRATTLE, individually and in her capacity as Lieutenant at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants" (Docket No. 74-2520, No. 779 - September Term, 1974) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

[excerpt]

"OVERVIEW: Plaintiff inmate filed an action against defendants, correctional facility warden, captain, and lieutenant, after she was assigned to special custodial confinement. After a hearing, an adjustment committee had determined that plaintiff could not be safely returned to the general prison population. The district court specified certain requirements for future disciplinary actions against plaintiff and concluded that the committee violated plaintiff's right to due process because she was not given notice of the charges. The district judge found that informal discussions before the hearings removed the required impartiality of a fact-finding body. On appeal, the court held that the district court's proscription against discussions by committee members with other officers in advance of the hearing was too broad. It failed to adhere to the rule that there must be a mutual accommodation between institutional needs and generally applicable constitutional requirements. The court vacated the district court's order to await an opinion that prescribed similar procedures for disciplinary proceedings which would apply to all inmates at the institution.

"OUTCOME: The court vacated the district court's order which held that plaintiff inmate's right to due process was violated and that specified procedures for future disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff to await an opinion in another case that prescribed similar procedures applicable to all inmates at that institution."

I will email you the full document. This is an appeal decision, but a a non-party to a case cannot appeal or be joined on appeal, so Carol Crooks was indeed involved from the beginning.

And here's a news article, from several years later, related to the case:

"Fund for Inmates Celebrated" by Tessa Melvin (New York Times, June 26, 1983)

[excerpt]

"In 1974, after several months of solitary confinement, Miss Crooks instituted and won a lawsuit charging denial of due process. Her case led to a class-action suit by Bedford inmates, brought on similar grounds. Two years ago, the settlement of that case, known as Powell v. Ward, established an inmate's rights to due process in internal disciplinary proceedings, according to Elizabeth Koob, a lawyer for the inmates. These included, she said, the right to know the nature of charges, to call witnesses, to receive a written decision and to be in solitary confinement no more than seven days without a hearing."

Searching on "Powell v. Ward" in LexisNexis finds the later decisions, and those are being emailed to you separately as well.