Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00692/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00692-1/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 Court notes that Siyam has objected to the magistrate judge continuing to issue

orders in light of Siyam’s election for a district judge. However, on December 23, 2010, this

Court referred this matter to the magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation. See

Doc. 5, p. 3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; LRCiv 72.1; L.RCiv 72.2.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MOUSA SIYAM, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

CONRAD M. GRABER,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-692-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody filed by Mousa Siyam (“Siyam”). On June 17, 2011,

Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) in

which he recommended Ground one be dismissed with prejudice and Grounds Two and

Three be dismissed without prejudice.1

 The Report and Recommendation advised the parties

that any written objections were to be served and filed within 14 days of being served with

a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Siyam has filed an Objection.

Case 4:10-cv-00692-CKJ Document 21 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 5
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 - 2 -

Jurisdiction of the Court

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that “[h]abeas corpus is not available to

challenge an inmate’s conditions of confinement not resulting in any impact on the legality

or duration of that confinement.” Report and Recommendation, pp. 4-5; Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent and a [civil rights] action

proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the

prisoner’s sentence”); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F2d 890, 891-892 (9th Cir. 1979) (upholding

dismissal of petition challenging conditions of confinement, the Ninth Circuit noted that “the

writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement). 

Siyam claims in Ground Two that prison officials imposed impermissible retaliatory

sanctions against Siyam for requesting that fingerprint evidence be taken from the cigarette

packs and lighter by imposing sanctions which are impermissible for a first time violation

of Code 305, specifically disciplinary transfer and excessive administrative segregation.

Petition, Doc. 1, p. 5A; Memorandum, Doc. 2, p. 9. Siyam asserts in Ground Three that the

sanctions imposed by the BOP violated his right under the Eighth Amendment against cruel

and unusual punishment because the sanctions are excessive and disproportionate to the

severity of the alleged first-time violation. Petition, Doc. 1, pp. 6-6A; Memorandum, Doc.

2, p. 10. These claims only challenge the conditions of his confinement and, if Siyam were

successful in these claims, there would not be any impact on the legality or duration of

Siyam’s confinement. These claims that seek to challenge the conditions of Siyam’s

confinement are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus action. The

Court does not have jurisdiction of these claims in this habeas action; the Court will dismiss

these claims without prejudice.

Objection to Order Denying Judicial Notice

Included in his Objections, Siyam asserts the magistrate judge erred in denying his

request for judicial notice regarding the conviction of Officer B. Montgomery, Special

Case 4:10-cv-00692-CKJ Document 21 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 5
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

2

Officer Montgomery is alleged to have falsified the documents on June 2, 2010,

while Siyam’s incident occurred on September 26, 2009, and the Disciplinary Hearing

occurred on November 4, 2009.

- 3 -

Investigative Specialist, for falsifying records regarding another inmate. However, the

incident and disciplinary proceedings at issue in this case occurred months before the

incident for which Officer Montgomery was convicted.2

 Because Siyam is alleging he was

denied due process during the disciplinary hearing proceedings, events that occurred months

later are not relevant to whether Siyam was afforded due process during the disciplinary

proceedings. The Court agrees with the May 31, 2011, Order (Doc. 16) of the magistrate

judge.

Objections as to Due Process Claim

Siyam asserts that the magistrate judge based his finding on the same erroneous facts

that were used by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”). However, Siyam cites to that

portion of the Report and Recommendation that was summarizing the factual and procedural

background. The magistrate judge was not making such a finding, merely setting forth the

finding made by the DHO.

Siyam also asserts that the search was a planned and targeted search rather than a

random search. Siyam asserted that a confidential informant report would have substantiated

this assertion and that this evidence would have impeached the credibility of the officer

asserting the search was random. However, Siyam does not dispute the magistrate judge’s

determination that “[t]here is no factual support for Petitioner’s assertion that a confidential

informant was used in this case.” Report and Recommendation, p. 8. Siyam does not assert

in his Objections that prison officials prohibited him from presenting evidence or testimony

regarding whether the search was planned or random. The Court finds Siyam has not

presented any basis to conclude his disagreement with the classification of the search

constitutes a due process violation.

Case 4:10-cv-00692-CKJ Document 21 Filed 08/22/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

Siyam reiterates his argument that the open cube in which he was housed at the time

of the incident was a common area. As to this issue, the magistrate judge stated:

. . . The DHO did not rely on a constructive possession theory to support his findings.

This case is different from [Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F3d 874, 877 (5th Cir. 2001)]

and [Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992)], because the petitioners

in those cases had equal access to the common area, shared with other inmates,

whereas in this case, according to Petitioner’s uncontested allegations, inmates may

have some access to Petitioner’s living area, they do not have the same degree of

access and control that Petitioner exercises over his living area and his own mattress.

The DHO found Siyam possessed the cigarettes and lighter, not because he lived in

the dormitory in which the weapons were found, but because the cigarettes were

found in Siyam’s cell, under a mattress which Petitioner admitted was his. (Answer,

Ex.1, Attachment 4) These facts directly connected Siyam to the cigarettes. The

DHO relied on sufficient reliable evidence to satisfy the “some evidence” test. As the

Regional Director noted in the response to Petitioner’s grievance of this issue, an

inmate has the responsibility to keep his area free of contraband. (Petition, Exhibits,

Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal No. 567581-R1, Response); see also 28

C.F.R. § 541.12. “Some evidence,” therefore, supports the DHO's conclusion.

Accordingly, the DHO did not need to rely on a theory of constructive possession.

That there is evidence suggesting Siyam’s innocence is irrelevant. Due process only

requires that there be “some evidence” supporting the disciplinary decision. It does

not require that the supporting evidence outweigh the evidence to the contrary.

Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1984)].

Report and Recommendation, pp. 10-11. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that

“some evidence,” in the form of the cigarettes and lighter being found under a mattress which

Siyam admitted was his, was present to support the DHO’s conclusion. 

Siyam also reiterates his assertion that he should have been permitted to obtain and

pay for fingerprint analysis to show that the cigarettes and lighter were not his. Again, the

Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s discussion of this issue:

Petitioner has a due process right to “present documentary evidence in his defense

when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or

correctional goals.” [Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974)]. Petitioner’s

request for fingerprint evidence, however, goes beyond the bounds of a request to

compile and present documentary evidence, rather, Petitioner is requesting that he be

allowed to conduct his own investigations into the offense. Furthermore, even if this

were merely a request to present documentary evidence, prison officials have the

necessary discretion to structure the hearing to keep it within reasonable limits by

limiting an inmates ability to compile documentary evidence. See Id. The Supreme

Court has refused to establish an “across-the-board” policy imposing a duty on a

disciplinary board to explain why inmates were not allowed to present witnesses or

evidence. See Wolff, supra; Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 496 (1985). If denied the

right to present documentary evidence, due process requires prison officials to provide

an explanation, either in the administrative record or in court. Ponte, 471 U.S. at 497.

Vickie Petricka has provided a sufficient explanation for why Petitioner’s request was

Case 4:10-cv-00692-CKJ Document 21 Filed 08/22/11 Page 4 of 5
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 -

denied. [Officer] Petricka stated that DHO Neel documented that Petitioner requested

the cigarette-packs be fingerprinted, but notes that such testing or processing is not

required in an administrative prison discipline hearing. Officer Petricka states that,

in this case, Petitioner provided no credible or verifiable evidence that the cigarettes

were planted in his cell to warrant the extraordinary investigative measures.

Furthermore, as Respondent notes in the Answer, Petitioner did not dispute the

unauthorized items were found in his mattress, thus, even if he had established that

his fingerprints were not on the unauthorized items, it would not negate the possession

charge.

Report and Recommendation, pp. 7-8.

Siyam received all due process safeguards required in prison disciplinary proceedings.

The record conclusively shows that Siyam is not entitled to habeas corpus relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2241; therefore, an evidentiary hearing is not required. See Anderson v. United

States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The May 31, 2011, Order of the magistrate judge (Doc. 16) is CONFIRMED.

2. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

3. Ground One of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4. Grounds Two and Three of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this

matter.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00692-CKJ Document 21 Filed 08/22/11 Page 5 of 5