Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01826/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01826-0/pdf.json

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

---

BLD-055 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1826

___________

JOHN J. MCCARTHY,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN LEWISBURG USP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 1:14-cv-01910)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted on Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 19, 2015

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 25, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1826 Document: 003112139995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2015
2

John J. McCarthy appeals pro se from the District Court’s order denying his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because this appeal 

presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. 

I.

McCarthy is a federal prisoner serving a 235-month sentence imposed by the 

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for possession of a firearm by 

a convicted felon. This appeal concerns a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he alleged 

that his constitutional rights were violated during disciplinary proceedings that resulted, 

in pertinent part, in the loss of good conduct time.1 The Magistrate Judge issued a report 

recommending that McCarthy’s claims be denied as unexhausted and, alternatively, as 

meritless. On March 16, 2015, after considering McCarthy’s objections, which were not 

specific, the District Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

denying McCarthy’s § 2241 petition. 

McCarthy appealed, and the Government has moved for summary affirmance of 

the District Court’s order.

II.

 

1 To the extent McCarthy challenges punishment that did not result in the loss of prison 

credit, those claims do not sound in habeas. See Learner v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 

(3d cir. 2002). In addition, McCarthy’s informal brief refers to a challenge about whether 

his federal time should run concurrent to a state sentence. It does not appear he raised 

this issue before the District Court in this case, and, in any event, we recently addressed 

the issue in a separate appeal. See C.A. No. 15-2339. 

Case: 15-1826 Document: 003112139995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2015
3

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.2 We review the District 

Court’s denial of habeas relief de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Denny v. 

Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2013). If no substantial question is presented, we 

may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6; 

Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). In this appeal, we need not 

address whether McCarthy properly exhausted his claims, as the claims are meritless. 

A prisoner has a liberty interest in good conduct credit. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 557 (1974). Thus, a disciplinary hearing that may result in the loss of such 

credit must provide certain due process safeguards to a prisoner, including: (1) at least 

24-hour advance notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present 

documentary evidence; and (3) a written decision explaining the evidence relied upon and 

the reasons for the disciplinary action. Id. at 564-66. The Supreme Court has held that 

“revocation of good time does not comport with the minimum requirements of procedural 

due process unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some 

evidence in the record.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). This standard is minimal and “does not require 

examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, 

or weighing of the evidence.” Id. at 455. Rather, the relevant inquiry “is whether there is 

any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary 

 

2 McCarthy’s challenge to a disciplinary action resulting in the loss of good conduct 

time is properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 

254 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008). A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal from the 

denial of a § 2241 petition. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009). 

Case: 15-1826 Document: 003112139995 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/25/2015
4

board.” Id., at 455-56.

Here, the Disciplinary Hearing Officers’ findings that McCarthy committed the 

violations that resulted in three disallowances of good conduct time were supported by 

“some evidence.” Regarding the first incident, which took place May 21, 2014, 

McCarthy was accused of threatening bodily harm and refusing an order. At the hearing, 

McCarthy received a staff representative, testified on his own behalf, and obtained 

testimony from another inmate. In finding McCarthy committed the alleged violations, 

the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) relied on the eyewitness written account of the 

reporting officer and McCarthy’s own admission that he stuck his arm through the wicket 

and refused to remove it. The “some evidence” standard may be satisfied solely by an 

incident report. See Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2001); 

McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). In this case, however, the 

DHO also relied on McCarthy’s partial admission that he refused to remove his arm from 

the wicket. Accordingly, the decision was supported by sufficient evidence to comply 

with the requirements of due process.

In the second incident, which took place June 1, 2014, McCarthy was accused of 

possessing a lock-picking device. At the hearing, McCarthy, who appeared with a staff 

representative, admitted possessing the flattened AA battery terminal in question, but 

denied that it was a lock-picking device. The DHO based his finding on the written 

eyewitness account of the reporting officer, a photograph of the object, and McCarthy’s 

testimony. Accordingly, the decision was supported by sufficient evidence to comply 

with the requirements of due process.

Case: 15-1826 Document: 003112139995 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/25/2015
5

In the third incident in question, McCarthy was accused of threatening bodily 

harm and refusing to obey an order on July 30, 2014. At the hearing, McCarthy, who 

waived the right to a staff representative, testified he wouldn’t submit to hand restraints. 

He denied threatening anybody. Another inmate testified on McCarthy’s behalf that 

McCarthy did not make any threats while that inmate was present. In finding McCarthy 

committed the violation, the DHO relied on the very specific, written statement from the 

reporting officer, as well as McCarthy’s partial admission that he refused to submit to 

hand restraints. Accordingly, this decision, too, was supported by sufficient evidence to 

comply with the requirements of due process.

McCarthy’s general assertions that his rights were violated because the DHOs

considered the adverse evidence to be more credible than his defenses does not disturb 

our conclusion. A challenge to the weight accorded evidence is not relevant to the 

question of whether the decision was supported by “some evidence” because the standard 

does not require “weighing of the evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. Furthermore, we 

note that the DHOs’ decisions complied with the requirement that a decision must be 

based on the “greater weight of the evidence” when conflicting evidence is presented. 28 

C.F.R. § 541.8(f). The written decisions reflect that the conflicting evidence was 

considered, but that the DHOs found the greater weight of the evidence to indicate that 

McCarthy committed the alleged violations.

We also agree with the District Court that McCarthy’s due process rights were not 

violated by the hearing procedures. Regarding the above hearings, McCarthy received 

notice, had an opportunity to present evidence and testify on his own behalf, and received 

Case: 15-1826 Document: 003112139995 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/25/2015
6

copies of the written decisions that explained the reasons for the loss of good conduct 

time. 

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 15-1826 Document: 003112139995 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/25/2015