Gibson v. Greilick

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Petitioner, 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.

         I. Petitioner's Claims

         Bureau 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.

         II. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

         Respondent moves for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).^[1] 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 omitted).

         III. Analysis

         After thorough review, the Court finds habeas relief should be denied.

         A. Due Process Requirements

         “Prison 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).

         There 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).

         B. Petitioner's Disciplinary Conviction

         1. Grounds One, Two, and Three

         In 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).^[2]See Id. Based on Petitioner's citations, ...