Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06996/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6996

KEVIN MCWILLIAMS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER SAAD,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00127-GMG)

Submitted: February 6, 2020 Decided: February 19, 2020

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin McWilliams, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6996 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/19/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin McWilliams, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition, in which McWilliams challenged the revocation 

of Good Conduct Time based on a prison disciplinary conviction. In ruling on 

McWilliams’ § 2241 petition, the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in 

Lennear v. Wilson, 937 F.3d 257, 279 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that, in prison disciplinary 

proceedings, an inmate “has a qualified right to access and compel consideration of any 

video surveillance evidence of the incident giving rise to his loss of good time credits”). 

Here, the record establishes that McWilliams asked for the relevant video the day he was 

charged, but the video had been deleted. After an inmate timely requests video footage, 

id. at 274-75, 

(1) the government bears the burden of establishing a legitimate penological 

justification for refusing to consider such evidence; (2) whether an asserted 

penological justification warrants denying consideration of such evidence 

must be assessed on a case-by-case basis; (3) to the extent consideration of 

such evidence is denied on grounds that the evidence is not pertinent, that 

determination must be made by the hearing officer, not prison officials 

involved in lodging the charge; and (4) before categorically refusing to 

consider such evidence, the government should assess whether any 

alternative avenues exist for permitting consideration of the evidence, in 

some form, that protect the asserted legitimate penological consideration for 

restricting consideration of such evidence.

Id. at 273; see id. at 270-72. We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further 

proceedings in light of Lennear. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of 

McWilliams’ § 2241 petition.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6996 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/19/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6996 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/19/2020 Pg: 3 of 3