United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a federal prisoner appearing pro se, brings this action under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking the expungement of a prison
disciplinary conviction and return of good time credits.
See Pet. [Doc. No. 1]. United States District Judge
Scott L. Palk has referred the matter for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (Resp.'s Mot.) [Doc.
No. 16] and Petitioner filed a Response (Pet.'s Resp.)
[Doc. No. 19]. For the reasons set forth below, it is
recommended that Respondent's motion be GRANTED.
of Prison (BOP) officials alleged Petitioner “stuck his
arm out the food slot and demanded . . . a towel” and
then refused to remove his arm when instructed to do so.
Pet., Ex. 1 at 11. Accordingly, officials charged Petitioner
with violating BOP Code 208 - blocking and/or tampering with
a locking device. See id., Ex. 1 at 11. He was found
guilty and sanctioned, in relevant part, with the loss of
earned credits. See id., Ex. 1 at 12-13. Petitioner
alleges a violation of due process because: (Grounds One
& Two) he was in need of emergency mental health
treatment at the time of the incident; (Ground Three) the
investigating officer refused to investigate Petitioner's
claim that he had requested mental health treatment; (Ground
Four) officers failed to provide Petitioner with a written
copy of the Unit Disciplinary Committee (UCD) report; (Ground
Five) the incident report failed to include various details;
and, (Ground Six) a food slot is not a security device thus
Petitioner cannot be found guilty under BOP Code 208. See
Id. at 7-10.
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
moves for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). See Resp.'s Mot. at 8. In
ruling on such a motion, the Court's function
“‘is not to weigh potential evidence that the
parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the
[petition] alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for
which relief may be granted.'” Brokers'
Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 757 F.3d
1125, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). To that
end, “‘[a]ll well-pled factual allegations are
accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.'” Id. (citation
thorough review, the Court finds habeas relief should be
Due Process Requirements
disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal
prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant
in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). To satisfy due
process in a prison disciplinary proceeding, “the
inmate must receive: (1) advance written notice of the
disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent
with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call
witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense;
and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence
relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.”
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).
must also be “some evidence in the record”
supporting the charge. Id. at 454-56. The
“some evidence” standard “does not require
examination of the entire record, independent assessment of
the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the
evidence.” Id. at 455. Instead, the question
for the Court is simply “whether there is any evidence
in the record that could support the conclusion reached by
the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56. A
disciplinary decision “can be upheld even if the
evidence supporting the decision is
‘meager.'” Mitchell v. Maynard, 80
F.3d 1433, 1445 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hill, 472
U.S. at 457).
Petitioner's Disciplinary Conviction
Grounds One, Two, and Three
Grounds One, Two, and Three, Petitioner complains that he had
been denied emergency mental health treatment, was
“unaware of the seriousness of [his] actions, ”
and the investigator refused to investigate his mental health
claims. Pet. at 7-8. Petitioner cites alleged violations of
BOP regulations 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 (detailing
investigation duties) and § 541.6 (discussing competency
requirements for disciplinary proceedings).See Id.
Based on Petitioner's citations, ...