Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00612/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00612-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leonard Duane Griffith, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dennis R. Smith, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-00612-GMS (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On March 26, 2013, Petitioner Leonard Duane Griffith, an inmate currently

incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”), Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (hereinafter “habeas petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2241, challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ finding of guilt on the charge of Possessing a

Hazardous Tool, and requesting a restoration of 41-days loss of good time, and “any other

relief this Court deems appropriate.” (Doc. 1.) On August 8, 2013, Respondent filed his

Answer urging the Court to deny Petitioner’s habeas petition on the merits. (Doc. 8.) On

September 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a Traverse in opposition to Respondent’s Answer. (Doc.

10.) 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently an inmate housed at FCI, Phoenix, Arizona, and is serving a

262-month sentence for drug offenses, with a projected release date of June 18, 2026. (Doc.

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 1 of 8
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

UNICOR is the trade name for the Federal Prison Industries, the primary work

program for federal prison inmates. (Doc. 8, at 4, fn. 2.)

- 2 -

8-1, at 4 ¶¶3, 4.) 

On April 15, 2012, prison staff searched Petitioner’s jail cell and found several items

of contraband, namely: an altered hair trimmer motor wired to a battery pack; an inmatemanufactured heating device (colloquially referred to as a “stinger,” which is commonly used

to create intoxicants); a vial containing a crushed substance; and, a six-inch plastic rod with

a sharpened tip on one end and a handle fashioned with tape on the other. (Doc 8-1, at 33

¶4.) The officer that discovered these items charged Petitioner with three prohibited acts:

Code 104, Possession, Manufacture, or Introduction of a Gun, Firearm Weapon, Sharpened

Instrument, Knife, Dangerous Chemical, Explosive, Ammunition, or any Instrument Used

as a Weapon; Code 302, Misuse of Authorized Medication; and Code 305, Possession of

anything not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate, and not issued to him through

regular channels. (Id.) 

Petitioner was served with the incident report later that evening by a Lieutenant, who

informed Petitioner of his rights, and investigated the incident. (Doc. 8-1, at 33 ¶5.)

Petitioner indicated he understood his rights and made the statement, “it is not a weapon,”

but did not request that the Lieutenant interview any witnesses. (Id., 39.) The Lieutenant

then determined that Petitioner was correctly charged, based upon the information contained

in the incident report, and directed that Petitioner remain in the Special Housing Unit pending

a Unit Discipline Committee (“UDC”) hearing. (Doc. 8-1, at 33 ¶5.)

The UDC hearing commenced the following morning, during which time Petitioner

asserted that the alleged weapon was “a plastic stick utilized in UNICOR1

 for soldering.”

(Doc. 8-1, at 33 ¶6.) Petitioner also asserted that “[t]hat’s the way it comes in UNICOR,”

and “[t]he motor is part of my clippers.” (Id.) The UDC found that Petitioner had

committed the prohibited acts and referred the matter to the Discipline Hearing Officer

(“DHO”). (Id.) On April 16, 2012, a UDC staff representative provided Petitioner with a

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 2 of 8
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 -

notice of the DHO hearing and an advisement of his rights. (Doc. 8-1, at 34 ¶7, 41-42.)

Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the notice and advisement. (Id.)

The UDC representative provided additional information with the DHO referral.

Specifically, he provided the DHO with a memorandum of an interview he conducted with

a UNICOR Assistant Factory Manager during which the Manager confirmed that the

UNICOR tool found in Petitioner’s cell made of hard plastic and was not to be removed from

the UNICOR area. (Doc. 8-1, at 34 ¶8, 44.) He also provided a memorandum confirming

that the crushed substance was indeed a medication prescribed to Petitioner, but which was

only to be administered in pill form. (Id., at 34 ¶8, 45.) The UDC representative furthermore

provided pictures of the UNICOR tool and the other two devices found during the search of

Petitioner’s jail cell. (Id., at 34 ¶8, 36-37.)

On April 24, 2012, the DHO convened a video conference disciplinary hearing. The

DHO confirmed with Petitioner that he had received advance notice of the charges against

him and that he was advised of his rights before the DHO. (Doc. 8-1, at 34 ¶9, 50.) The

DHO also confirmed that Petitioner waived his right to have a staff representative, and again

advised Petitioner of his rights, which Petitioner acknowledged, and read the incident report

to him. (Id.) Petitioner denied the charges against him and indicated that he was ready to

proceed to the hearing. (Id.) Petitioner stated that the crushed substance was an antacid, and

not the medications identified in the incident report or in the memorandum submitted by the

UDC representative; he stated that the “plastic found in his cell wasn’t a weapon but rather

a tool he removed from UNICOR”; he stated that he knew he wasn’t supposed to remove the

item from UNICOR but it wasn’t intended to be a weapon: and he admitted possessing the

stinger. (Id., at 34 ¶10; 49.)

Petitioner did not request witnesses. (Doc. 8-1, at 35 ¶11, 50.) The DHO received

as documentary evidence the Incident Report and Investigation, and the photographs and

memorandums submitted by the UDC representative. (Id., at 50.) The DHO found that

Petitioner committed the prohibited acts of Possessing a Hazardous Tool, Code 108 and

Possessing an Unauthorized Item. (Id.) The DHO found that Petitioner committed Code

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 3 of 8
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 -

108, a similar act to code 104, the code Petitioner was originally charged with. (Id.) The

DHO found insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner committed the

prohibited act of Code 302. (Id.) The DHO also made the following specific findings in

support of his decision:

The reporting Officer’s first hand eyewitness account. On 4-15-2012, at 6:30

p.m., the reporting officer searched your [] cell in Yuma. During the search,

the staff member found an altered hair trimmer motor affixed to a battery pack

forming a tattoo gun along with several needles. Staff also found a

manufactured heating device (commonly referred to as a “stinger”) and a vial

of crushed powder identified in the report as Wellbuterin. Also found was a

sharpened plastic rod with a tip on one end and a tape handle on the other end.

The DHO reviewed the photo sheet depicting the sharpened plastic rod. The

item depicted is capable of causing serious injuries and is capable of evading

metal detection. The DHO took into consideration that the item is a tool

obtained from UNICOR. You said you were aware that you were not

supposed to remove the item from UNICOR but did anyway. You indicated

during the hearing that you were using it for benign harmless purposes.

However, the DHO observed the item depicted in the photo sheet and

determined that the “tool” you took from UNICOR is capable of being used

as a weapon. During the DHO’s correctional experiences he has observed

similar items used as weapons which had caused serious injury to inmates.

Also, the memorandum provided by S. Gonzales provided evidence that the

“tool” was made from hard plastic and sharp.

Based on the greater weight of evidence, the DHO finds you committed the

prohibited act of Code 108, Possession of a Hazardous Tool, a similar act to

the code the inmate was initially charged with, Code 104, Possessing a

Dangerous Weapon. A hard plastic tool readily capable of being used as a

stabbing type weapon was found in your possession.

The DHO considered your statement during the hearing. You admitted

possessing a heating device manufactured to heat items (Stinger). The DHO

reviewed the photo sheet which depicted a commonly inmate manufactured

heating device. This item is commonly used by inmates to heat ingredients to

manufacture intoxicants.

Based on the facts, evidence and your admission to possessing the stinger (an

unauthorized item), the DHO finds you committed the prohibited act of Code

305, Possessing an Unauthorized Item.

(Doc. 8-1, at 50-51.)

As a result of the finding of a Code 108 prohibited act, the DHO imposed the

following sanctions: 60-days disciplinary segregation; disallowance of 41-days Good

Conduct Time, and loss of four months phone privileges. (Doc. 8-1, at 35 ¶14, 51-52.) The

DHO imposed a loss of commissary privileges for 6 months for the Code 305 violation. (Id.)

Petitioner was provided with a copy of the DHO decision. (Id., at 35 ¶15, 52.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 4 of 8
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 -

Petitioner filed an administrative appeal of the DHO decision to the Regional Office,

arguing that the UNICOR tool was not a hazardous tool, as it is not classified as an “A or B

Tool” and was “thin and extremely flexible.” (Doc. 8-1, at 4-5 ¶7, 25.) On June 11, 2012,

the Regional Director upheld the DHO’s findings. (Id., at 5 ¶7, 26.) Petitioner appealed the

Regional Director’s decision to the General Counsel, arguing that the UNICOR tool did not

meet the definition of hazardous under Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) Policies that govern the

classification of BOP property, and denote Class A Hazardous Tools as “most likely to be

used in an escape or an attempted escape: Used to manufacture or serve as weapons capable

of doing serious bodily harm.” (Id., at 28-29.) On April 10, 2013, the General Counsel

upheld the DHO findings. (Id., at 5 ¶8, 30.)

ARGUMENT

Federal prisoners have a statutory right to good time credits. See 18 U.S.C. §2634.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to discipline hearings at

which an inmate may lose good conduct sentence credits to which he is otherwise entitled.

Wolff v. McConnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). Although the Supreme Court held that the

full panoply of Due Process rights do not apply in the prison discipline context, an inmate

subject to disciplinary sanctions that can impact a protected liberty interest must be afforded:

1) 24-hour advanced notice of the charge(s) against him; 2) a written statement by the fact

finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the action; 3) an opportunity to call

witnesses and present documentary evidence; 4) assistance at the hearing if he is illiterate or

if the matter is complex; and, 5) an impartial fact finder. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-72.

The Due Process Clause requirements are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the

decision of the disciplinary tribunal. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution,

Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456-57 (1985). Under that standard, “the relevant question

is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by

the disciplinary board.” Id., at 455. The standard is “minimally stringent.” Cato v. Rushen,

824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987). It only requires “any evidence in the record that could

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. (quoting Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 5 of 8
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 -

456, emphasis added in Cato). The “some evidence standard” does not require a court to

examine the entire disciplinary record, perform an independent assessment of credibility of

witnesses or re-weigh the evidence. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. 

Petitioner claims that he was denied Due Process because the DHO “found Petitioner

guilty without viewing the evidence or determining if the plastic solder aide met the

definition of a Class ‘A’ tool ... [under] Bureau Policy.” (Doc. 1, at 4.) Petitioner asserts that

“there is no evidence to support a finding that the UNICOR tool was in fact a hazardous

tool.” (Doc. 10, at 2.)

The Court finds that Petitioner was afforded all of the procedural protections to which

he was entitled relating to the DHO hearing. Petitioner was given adequate notice, and the

opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence on his behalf, but failed to do so.

Furthermore, Petitioner makes no assertion that the DHO was not an impartial fact finder.

Petitioner challenges the DHO’s finding of the Class 108 violation, arguing that the DHO

improperly concluded that the UNICOR tool was a hazardous tool. He also suggests that the

DHO improperly based his findings on a picture of the tool, as opposed to viewing the actual

tool.

The evidence on the record before the DHO was sufficient to support the finding of

a Class 108 violation. The DHO considered the photograph of the UNICOR tool, as well as

a memorandum which described it as a six-inch, sharpened hard plastic rod, with a handle

fashioned by tape on one end and a sharp point on the other, and found that it was “readily

capable” of being used as a stabbing type weapon. During the hearing, Petitioner did not

challenge whether or not the photograph was an accurate depiction of the tool, or request that

the DHO view the actual tool. Petitioner only asserted that he was using the tool for benign,

harmless purposes. Petitioner now attaches to his habeas petition a copy of a photograph he

asserts depicts the UNICOR tool in a bent shape, and argues that if the DHO had seen the

actual tool he would not have reached the same conclusion. (Doc. 1, at 22.) The fact that

the tool may be capable of being bent, however, does not contradict the DHO’s finding that

the tool was hard plastic and sharp and taped on one end and could be used as a stabbing

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 6 of 8
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 -

weapon. The Court finds that the DHO’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Although Petitioner argued for the first time on appeal that the UNICOR tool does not

meet the BOP policy guidelines defining “hazardous tool,” and therefore did not properly

exhaust the claim, the Court finds that Petitioner’s argument, nonetheless, fails on its merits.

Petitioner asserts that BOP policy classifies various tools by letter (AA=Dangerous,

A=Hazardous, or B=Non-Hazardous) for the purpose of identifying them, tracking them, and

managing their use by inmates. (Doc. 1, at 18.) Petitioner asserts that BOP policy defines

a Class A Hazardous tool to include tools most likely to be used in an escape or attempted

escape, or used as weapons capable of doing serious bodily harm. (Id.) He claims that

UNICOR failed to treat the UNICOR tool found in Petitioner’s possession like a Class A

hazardous tool is supposed to be treated under BOP policy (i.e., restricting inmate access to

them, locking them behind 2 locked doors, or shadowing them in red), and that therefore, the

tool is not a hazardous tool under the policy and Code 108. (Doc. 1, at 18.) 

 First, the failure of UNICOR to follow BOP policy as to identifying or managing

tools does not change the policy definition of a Class A Hazardous tool to include a tool

“capable of doing serious bodily harm.” The DHO made a finding that the UNICOR tool

could be used as a stabbing tool to cause serious bodily injury, which is consistent with the

policy definition. Second, BOP policies are “rules of practice and do not rise to the status

of law.” Floyd v. Henderson, 456 F.2d 1117, 1119 (5th Cir. 1972) (a prisoner transfer that

was otherwise lawful would not become unlawful merely because a prison policy was not

strictly followed).

Disciplinary regulations governing inmate discipline appear in the Code of Federal

Regulations. According to the regulation defining the Code 108 prohibited act, hazardous

tools are “tools most likely to be used in an escape or escape attempt or to serve as weapons

capable of doing serious bodily harm to others, or those hazardous to institutional security

or personal safety; e.g., hack-saw blade, body armor, maps, handmade rope, or other escape

paraphernalia, portable telephone, pager, or other electronic device.” 28 C.F.R. §541.3,

Table 1. The DHO’s finding that the UNICOR tool was a hazardous tool because it could

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 7 of 8
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 -

readily be used as a stabbing weapon to cause serious bodily injury fell squarely within the

regulation’s definition. 

CONCLUSION

This Court finds that the DHO performed a detailed analysis of the facts presented at

the hearing, and that the DHO’s findings and conclusions were supported by ample, if not

substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner was not deprived of his due

process rights in the DHO’s finding that Petitioner violated Code 108, Possession of a

Hazardous Tool. The Court will recommend that Petitioner’s habeas petition be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 28th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00612-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/28/14 Page 8 of 8