Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00270/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00270-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The docket sheet shows Petitioner’s first name as “Edmond.” Petitioner has signed

his first name as “Edmon” on certain papers filed in this case.

2

 Respondent has provided the Declaration of Catherine Smithers, Legal Assistant,

Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, Arizona (Doc. 16-1, Ex. A), who has verified as

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edmond Gasaway, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Louis W. Winn, Jr ,Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC (CRP)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Edmond Gasaway,1

 proceeding pro se and confined in the Federal

Correctional Institution-Tucson, has filed an Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. 6, Am. Pet.). Respondent

has filed a Return and Answer to the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus and Motion to Dismiss Petition. (Doc. 16, Answer). Petitioner has filed a Response

to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Petition. (Doc. 22). 

Petitioner is presently serving a 387-month sentence as a result of his conviction

obtained in the Eastern District of Texas on March 5, 1997. (Answer at 2 & Doc. 16-1,

Attach. 1, Judgment in a Criminal Case).2

 Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

custodian of records true copies of certain records submitted as Attachments with

Respondent’s Answer. 

- 2 -

Correctional Institution at Ray Brook, New York (“FCI Ray Brook”), from January 27, 2011,

to March 15, 2013. (Answer at 2, Doc. 16-1, Attach. 4).

This case has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 9). For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge recommends

that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied. 

I. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

 Petitioner asserts as grounds in the Amended Petition “misapplication of prohibited

act and wrongful taking of good time credits.” (Am. Pet. at 4). Petitioner contends that on

or about July 5, 2011, his property and legal documents were confiscated by Lt. (Lieutenant)

Halladay when Petitioner was incarcerated at FCI Ray Brook. (Id. at 4). Several legal

documents allegedly were placed in a package, the materials were deemed unauthorized, and

Lieutenant Halladay told Petitioner that the unauthorized material needed to be mailed to his

chosen destination. (Id.). Petitioner contends that Lieutenant Halladay overlooked

documents that were unauthorized for inmate possession so Petitioner took corrective action

by ridding himself of the property and sending or attempting to send certain materials to his

home. (Id.). Petitioner asserts that as a result of his complying with Bureau of Prison

(“BOP”) policy and Lieutenant Halladay’s instructions, he was wrongfully sanctioned for a

prohibited act of possession of unauthorized material and lost thirteen days good time credits

and 180 visiting days. (Id. at 5). Petitioner claims that his witness “AW Porter” was not

present as indicated by the Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”) and the outcome of the

hearing may have been different had Porter been present. (Id.). Petitioner contends that his

due process rights were violated, the Incident Report should be expunged, and his good time

credits and status should be restored. (Id.).

Respondent argues that Petitioner received all the procedural protections to which he

was entitled at his discipline hearing, that the action of the DHO is supported by some

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Effective June 20, 2011 and current through March 24, 2016. See Spotts v. Holt,

No. 3:11-cv-1880, 2015 WL 4219751, at *7 (M.D. Pa. July 10, 2015). 

- 3 -

evidence, and that the Amended Petition should be denied. (Answer at 7). Respondent does

not challenge Petitioner’s claim that he exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his

allegations. (Id. at 3).

II. Background

A. BOP Inmate Discipline Program

The BOP inmate discipline program describes certain acts that are prohibited at the

prison, classifies their severity as Low, Moderate, High and Greatest, and sets forth available

sanctions to be imposed when an inmate commits a prohibited act. 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, 541.3

& Tables 1-2.3

 (See Answer at 3-4). The discipline process generally starts when a staff

member issues an Incident Report to an inmate based on the staff member’s observation or

reasonable belief that the inmate has committed a prohibited act. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5. The

Incident Report describes the incident and the prohibited act and ordinarily is delivered to

the inmate within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of the inmate’s involvement in the

incident. Id. Following completion of a staff investigation, the Unit Discipline Committee

(“UDC”) reviews the Incident Report. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. The inmate may appear before the

UDC at its discretion and may make a statement and present documentary evidence on his

behalf. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(d) & (e). The UDC may find that the inmate committed the

prohibited act, it may find that the inmate did not commit the prohibited act, or it may refer

the matter to the DHO depending on the seriousness of the prohibited act. 28 C.F.R. §

541.7(a). 

If the Incident Report is referred, the DHO conducts a hearing at which the inmate

may appear at the DHO’s discretion. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(e)(1). After the hearing, the DHO

may find that the inmate committed the charged prohibited act or a similar prohibited act

based on the Incident Report, may find that the inmate did not commit the prohibited act, or

may refer the incident for further investigation, review and disposition. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(a).

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 See United States v. Neal, 776 F.3d 645, 654 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Section 1521 [18

U.S.C. § 1521] was enacted ... as part of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. ...

The statute prohibits the filing of, the attempting to file, or the conspiring to file documents

of the sort that could create false liens and encumbrances against federal employees.”). 

- 4 -

The DHO must be an impartial decision maker who was not involved in the alleged incident

as a victim, witness or investigator or who otherwise was not significantly involved in the

incident. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(b). The DHO’s findings must be based on “at least some facts

and if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.” 28 C.F.R. §

541.8(f). The DHO provides the inmate with a written copy of the decision. The DHO’s

decision must include findings on the following issues: (1) whether the inmate was advised

of his rights; (2) the evidence relied upon; (3) the DHO’s decision; (4) the sanction imposed;

and (5) the reason for the sanction. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h). The inmate may appeal the DHO’s

decision through the Administrative Remedy Program. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(i).

B. Inmate Possession of Alleged Fraudulent Lien Documents

Following the enactment of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 119 and 1521,4

 the BOP has implemented provisions prohibiting inmates from possessing

certain documents related to the filing of fraudulent liens against federal officials. (Doc. 16-

1, Attach. 5, BOP Mem.). Under BOP policy, inmates are prohibited from possessing

documents or materials that further criminal or fraudulent activity. (Id.). Uniform

Commercial Code (“UCC”) filings, lien documents, and documents containing personal

information regarding certain persons have been determined to pose a threat to the security

of the institution and are considered contraband. (Id.). Inmate property may be searched

randomly or for good cause. (Id., citing Program Statement (“P.S.”) 5521.05). Found

contraband is confiscated and the inmate is provided with a confiscation form. (Id., citing

P.S. 5580.07). An inmate may receive disciplinary action for possession of contraband.

(Doc. 16-1, Attach. 5, BOP Mem.). If an inmate is sending material for the possible filing

of a false lien or disclosing unauthorized personal information, the action may be referred

for prosecution. (Id.). 

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

C. Factual Background

On July 5, 2011, Special Investigative Services (“SIS”) determined that Petitioner

attempted to send two pieces of mail which contained UCC financial documents and

instructions on how to file a UCC lien. (Doc. 16-1, Attach. 6, Incident Report #2182191

dated July 5, 2011). The documents contained unauthorized personal information and were

confiscated. (Id. & Doc. 16-1, Attach. 3, Goddeau Mem.). The documents included a UCC

financial statement, a bonded promissory note, a Notary’s certification of service, a due

presentment under notary seal settlement, a private administrative remedy, an unconditional

acceptance, an international bill of exchange, a 1099 OID form, a 1040V form, and annual

summary and transmittal of US information returns. (Doc. 16-1, Attach. 3, Goddeau Mem.).

A BOP staff member administratively charged Petitioner with a Code 305 prohibited act,

possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by an inmate and not issued to

him through regular channels. (Doc. 16-1, Attach. 6, Incident Report). The Incident Report

was delivered to Petitioner on July 5, 2011. (Id.). A prison official investigated the incident,

concluded that Petitioner had been properly charged with the Code 305 prohibited act, and

referred the incident to the UDC. (Id. at 2). Petitioner was advised of his right to remain

silent and afforded an opportunity to make a statement. (Id.). 

Petitioner appeared before the UDC on July 12, 2011. (Id. at 1). Petitioner contended

that SIS staff had reviewed the documents and given “them back to him to mail out” and that

SIS staff “missed [the documents] the first time.” (Id.). The UDC referred the charges to the

DHO. (Id.). 

On July 12, 2011, the UDC gave Petitioner Notice of a Hearing before the DHO.

(Doc. 16-1, Attach. 7, Notice of Discipline Hearing before the DHO). Petitioner requested

the presence of a staff representative, Lieutenant Halladay, and a witness, M. Wagner

(AWO), who would testify that Petitioner told him that SIS staff reviewed the documents and

returned them to Petitioner. (Id.). Petitioner was provided with notice of his rights at the

discipline hearing. (Doc. 16-1, Attach. 8, Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing). 

Petitioner appeared before the DHO on September 1, 2011. (Doc. 16-1, Attach. 9,

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

DHO Report for Incident Report #2182191). Petitioner waived his right to a staff

representative and denied the charges, reiterating that the materials had been returned to him.

(Id.). Petitioner proceeded without the witness who was present at the hearing. (Id. at 1-2).

The DHO found that Petitioner committed the prohibited act as charged, that is, possession

of anything not authorized, basing his decision on the reporting officer’s written statement

and the SIS investigation. (Id. at 3). The DHO considered Petitioner’s statement that

Lieutenant Halladay had returned the documents to him but gave greater weight to the

reporting officer’s statement that the confiscated documents were not the same documents

as those previously returned and that Petitioner possessed the UCC lien documents. (Id.).

The DHO sanctioned Petitioner by imposing fifteen days of disciplinary segregation,

disallowance of thirteen days good conduct time, and 180 days of visiting restriction. (Id.).

The DHO set forth his reasons for the action and notified Petitioner of his appeal rights.

(Id.). The DHO report was delivered to Petitioner on September 2, 2011. (Id. at 4). 

III. Discussion

Petitioner seeks the restoration of good time credits and of his prior status. Petitioner

contends that “good time credits implicate the length of his sentence.” (Am. Pet. at 5). 

Federal prisoners have a right by statute to good time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624.

Habeas corpus jurisdiction is available under § 2241 “for a prisoner’s claims that he has been

denied good time credits without due process of law.” See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267,

1269 (9th Cir. 1989). “[A] claim challenging prison disciplinary proceedings is cognizable”

under the federal habeas statute “only if it will ‘necessarily spell speedier release’ from

custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future

date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody.” Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d

992, 995 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing, inter alia, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011)).

Respondent asserts that Petitioner has a projected release date of November 29, 2024 “via

Good Conduct.” (Answer at 2, citing Doc. 16-1, Attach. 2). Respondent does not contend

that Petitioner’s sentence is not affected by the loss of good time credits. The Court has

jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 Amended Petition.

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

 To satisfy the basic requirements of due process in the context of prison discipline

proceedings, prison officials need only provide an inmate with: (1) a written notice of the

charge at least 24 hours prior to any hearing; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present

documentary evidence in his defense when such action will not be unduly hazardous to

institutional safety or correctional goals; and (3) a written statement by the factfinders as to

the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 565-66 (1974). 

Due process further requires only that disciplinary findings be supported by “some

evidence” in the record. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,

454-55 (1985). This standard is met when “there is any evidence in the record that could

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id., at 455-56. While this is a

“minimally stringent” standard, “there must be some indicia of reliability of the information

that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th

Cir. 1987). The “some evidence standard” does not require the court to examine the entire

disciplinary record, independently assess the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the

evidence. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. 

Petitioner does not contend he was not given the required notice or that he was not

provided with a written statement by the DHO regarding the evidence relied upon and the

reasons for the disciplinary action. Petitioner contends that the DHO misrepresented the fact

that “AW Porter” was present at the hearing and that the hearing went forward without

Petitioner calling “AW Porter” as a witness. (Am. Pet. at 5). The DHO Report shows that

“A.W. Wagner” was called and appeared as a witness but Petitioner proceeded without

calling any witnesses. (Doc. 16-1, Attach. 9 at 1-2). 

Petitioner argues that had “AW Porter bee[n] present, the outcome of the hearing may

have been different.” (Am. Pet. at 5). Petitioner specifically contends that after receiving the

Incident Report, he reported the incident to Warden Perdue who instructed him to alert AW

Porter of the matter. (Id. at 5). He claims that Warden Perdue and AW Porter assured him

the matter would be resolved. (Id.). He further contends that AW Porter “could have been

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

questioned as to the validity of Mrs. Halladay’s omission and or oversight of the property in

question. He could have asked that this matter be expunged. Who’s to say otherwise.” (Id.).

Based on Petitioner’s allegations, Petitioner allegedly did not discuss the matter with AW

Porter until after Petitioner received the Incident Report. Any information about the matter

possessed by AW Porter would have been based on what Petitioner told him. Petitioner has

not shown how the witness’ testimony would have changed the outcome.

The record shows that the DHO considered Petitioner’s assertion that the Lieutenant

returned the unauthorized documents to him. The DHO gave greater weight to the reporting

officer’s statement that the confiscated documents were not the same as those previously

returned and to Petitioner’s possession of the UCC lien documents. “The Federal

Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the one

reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 427 U.S. at 457. The reporting officer’s testimony

can constitute sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary finding. Bostic, 884 F.2d at

1271. To the extent that Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated because

the DHO rejected his claim that the unauthorized documents were mistakenly returned to him

and he was trying to rid himself of the documents (Doc. 22 at 1-2, 5), the Court does not

independently assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Petitioner does

not dispute that he possessed the documents or that they were considered contraband. (Doc.

22 at 5). Petitioner’s discipline determination is supported by “some evidence”and the

requirements of due process were satisfied.

IV. Recommendation 

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

after its independent review deny the Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For A Writ

Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody (Doc. 6).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and LRCiv 7.2(e) of the Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of

Arizona, any party may serve and file written objections within Fourteen (14) Days after

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

another party’s objections within Fourteen (14) Days after being served with a copy.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). No replies to objections shall be filed unless leave is granted from

the District Court to do so. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case

number: CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC.

Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to de novo review of the issues. See

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

DATED this 25th day of April, 2016.

 

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 31 Filed 04/25/16 Page 9 of 9