Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02103/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02103-0/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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Andre McRae, 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

Louis W. Winn Jr., 

 Respondent. 

CV 13-2103-TUC-RM (JR) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

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

Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody filed by Andre McRae (“Petitioner”). 

(Doc. 1). As explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Petition be 

dismissed.1

 

1

 This case was randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge Rateau on April 4, 2016. 

(Doc. 15). 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 10
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 The Magistrate Judge also previously issued an Order to Show Cause based on 

Petitioner’s failure to provide notice to the Clerk of Court of his current address 

(Doc. 17). Subsequent to issuing the Order to Show Cause, the Magistrate Judge 

discovered that Petitioner had filed a more recent case with the Court in which he had 

provided a more current address. As such, the Magistrate Judge did not recommend 

the dismissal of this case based on Petitioner’s failure to notify the Court of his 

address. Rather, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court direct the 

Clerk of Court to mail this Report and Recommendation to both the address listed in 

the docket of this case and to Petitioner’s most recently provided address as reflected 

in the case docketed as McRae v. United States, CV 15-0439-RM. 

I. Background 

 Petitioner is incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona 

(“USP Tucson”). He is serving a 687-month sentence. His projected release date is 

October 29, 2054. This action concerns an incident on October 9, 2012 when 

Petitioner gave a letter to an officer that was determined to contain suggestive 

statements and inappropriate comments. He was sanctioned with the loss of 27 days 

of good conduct time.2

 

 Petitioner filed this action seeking to expunge the incident report and the loss 

of his good time conduct. In Ground One, he argues that the Detention Hearing 

 

2

 He was also sanctioned with 30 days in disciplinary segregation and the loss of 

commissary privileges for one year. 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 10
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Officer (“DHO”) refused to adhere to the order from the Regional Director and 

overturn the sanctions. In Ground Two, he argues that the DHO’s findings that he 

committed the charged offense, is not supported by sufficient evidence to comport 

with Due Process. In Count Three, he argues that the DHO’s findings that he 

committed the charged offense, is not supported by sufficient evidence to comport 

with Bureau Policy. 

 Respondent argues that the Petition should be dismissed because the record 

demonstrates that Petitioner was afforded due process and “some evidence” supports 

the DHO’s decision.3

II. Facts 

 On October 9, 2013, a female correctional officer was escorting Petitioner 

back to his cell from the Law Library. (Doc. 13, Attach. 2, p. 29).4 Petitioner gave 

the officer a letter stating that it was nothing more than an apology for his cellmate’s 

use of profanity. Id. The officer placed the letter in her pocket, forgot about it and 

later discovered it while doing laundry. Id. The 4-page handwritten letter reads in 

part: 

What’s good young lady... 

 

3

 Petitioner alleges that he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the 

allegations in the Petition. Respondent notes that although Petitioner skipped a level 

of administrative review, Respondent does not contest that allegation. As such, the 

Court will proceed as if Petitioner’s allegations were properly exhausted. 

4

 The Memorandum prepared by the Operations Lieutenant mistakenly states that the 

incident occurred on October 16. That was the date the Memorandum was written. 

(Id.). 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 10
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

....off the record I dig the hell out of you. You have this aura about 

yourself that exudes some of the most attractive [illegible]. And any 

man with some sense should acknowledge your presence... 

You know you are a Cutie Right? Hands Down outside this 

environment I would pursue you like a medical student does a 

Doctorate. Your smile, swag and character itself is so appealing and it 

would be a crime if I never brought this to your attention. I am mindful 

of where we are and it is not in my Bloodline to Kiss And Tell... 

and I know I have piqued your interest as well, because a woman’s 

eyes don’t lie... 

Assuming I am right and your curiosity is at it’s tipping point... 

I’m not a RAT, our business is our business and anything that concerns 

myself or you (Assuming) is NO ONE else’ concern... 

It is unfortunate that I had to meet you under these terms. There is no 

way I could allow you to pass me by in those streets whether it was at a 

red light, vegetable aisle in the grocery store or out having dinner with 

you. You will acknowledge my interest in you... 

I’m just sure you will Agree and be willing to converse with me and get 

to know each other... 

When I go back to court and win the [illegible] of my case. I would be 

on the first flight back to Tucson to take you with me for a whole new 

life, career and husband... 

It is not even about the sexuality of the woman however she may 

lie...It is the Aura, and Spirit that she must possess to catch my eye. 

And you have done that from the first time I ever seen you back in A-1 

when you were on the midnight shift... 

. . . P.S. I don’t Kiss and Tell...Promise 

 

(Id. Attach 3, ps. 31-34). 

 On October 16, 2012, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) prepared an 

Incident Report charging Petitioner with a Code 206 prohibited act, “making sexual 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 10
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

proposals or threats to another” (Id. Attach 2, p. 26). A copy of the report was 

delivered to Petitioner. (Doc. 13, Ex. 1, at ¶ 4). The matter was referred to a Unit 

Discipline Committee (“UDC”) for hearing. Id. The hearing occurred on October 

22, 2012 at which time Petitioner claimed the letter was not sexual in nature and that 

he meant only to resolve an issue with other inmates. (Id.; Doc. 13, Attach. 2, p. 26). 

Based on the severity of the report, the UDC referred the matter to a DHO. (Doc. 13, 

Attach. 2, p. 26). 

 On November 4, 2012, the incident report was re-written to include additional 

details. (Id. at p. 27). Another hearing was held on November 7, 2012 where 

Petitioner again asserted that the letter was not sexually intended and had no sexual 

language in it. (Id.). The matter was again referred to a DHO and another hearing 

was held on November 27, 2012. (Id.; Doc. 13, Attach. 4, p. 38). At the hearing, 

Petitioner stated, “I’m not denying it but the letter does not contain any sexual 

intent.” (Doc. 13, Attach. 4, p. 39). Based on the evidence and Petitioner’s 

admission to the charge, the DHO found that Petitioner committed the prohibited act 

of making sexual proposals or threats to another in violation of Code 206. (Id.). 

 Petitioner appealed on December 5, 2012 and on February 4, 2012, the 

Regional Director directed the DHO to reconsider. (Id. at p. 42-43). That decision 

was made because the Petitioner’s behavior was found to be more like a Code 299 

violation most like 206, rather than Code 206 alone. (Id. at p. 47). A Code 299 

violation is charged for conduct that “disrupts or interferes with the security or 

orderly running of the institution or the Bureau of Prisons most like another High 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 10
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

severity prohibited act.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1. With respect to the sanction, 

the Regional Director stated that “[o]n appeal, the appropriate reviewing official may 

approve, modify, reverse, or send back with directions, including ordering a 

rehearing, any discipline action of the Unite Discipline Committee or Discipline 

Hearing Officer, but may not increase any valid sanction imposed.” (Doc. 13, 

Attach. 4, p. 44). 

 On February 14, 2013, the DHO reconsidered the matter and found that 

Petitioner clearly made suggestive statements and inappropriate comments. (Doc. 

13, Attach. 5, p. 46). The DHO upheld the original sanctions finding that Petitioner 

committed the prohibited act of conduct which disrupts/interferes with the orderly 

running of the Institution, Code 299 most like Code 206, making a sexual proposal. 

(Id.) 

III. Law 

A. The Due Process Requirements in a Prison Disciplinary Hearing 

 The United States Supreme Court has established five procedural safeguards 

for inmates when the loss of good conduct time credits are involved: (1) an inmate 

must receive written notice of the infractions(s) at least 24 hours before the 

disciplinary hearing; (2) an inmate has a right to call witnesses unless it would be 

unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; (3) an inmate is entitled 

to assistance in preparing and presenting a defense to the disciplinary charge; (4) an 

inmate is entitled to a copy of the disciplinary findings; and, (5) an inmate has a right 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 6 of 10
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

to have a sufficiently impartial decision maker. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 

539, 563-72 (1974). 

 A review of the record in this case reveals that the Wolff procedural safeguards 

were met. Petitioner received a copy of the incident report on October 16, 2012, the 

same day the incident report was written. That was well in advance of the October 

22, 2012 hearing before the UDC. On November 4, 2012, the incident report was rewritten to include additional facts. Petitioner received a copy of that report on the 

same day well in advance of the November 27, 2012 hearing before the DHO. On 

December 5, 2012, Petitioner appealed the incident report through the administrative 

remedy process and on February 14, 2012, the DHO reconsidered its finding and 

changed the code violation to comport with the evidence. 

 At all steps of the process, Petitioner received timely written notice of the 

infraction. He was provided disciplinary hearings at each step and his right to call 

witnesses at the hearings was honored. He does not allege that he was not provided 

with assistance in preparing and presenting his defense. Nor does he allege that he 

was not provided with a sufficiently impartial decision maker. Petitioner received all 

of the procedural safeguards required by due process before he was sanctioned with 

the loss of 27 days of good conduct time. 

B. The “Some Evidence” Standard of Review 

 for Prison Disciplinary Hearings 

 Judicial review of a prison disciplinary decision is limited to situations where 

the prison officials acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Marchesani v. 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 7 of 10
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

McCune, 531 F.2d 459, 462 (10th Cir. 1976). Requiring a modicum of evidence to 

support a decision to revoke good time credits will help to prevent arbitrary 

deprivations without threatening institutional interests or imposing undue 

administrative burdens. Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution, 

Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Due process requirements are satisfied if 

“some evidence” supports the decision of the prison disciplinary board. Id. A court 

may overturn the decision only if no reasonable adjudicator could find the defendant 

guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence presented. Henderson v. United 

States Parole Commission, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir.1994). The standard is 

minimally stringent and only requires any evidence in the record that supports the 

conclusion reached by the disciplinary board. Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th

Cir. 1987). 

 Here, the evidence supporting the DHO’s finding exceeds the “some 

evidence” standard required in prison disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner does not 

dispute that he wrote the letter and that he gave it to the correctional officer when she 

was escorting him back to his cell. Rather he argues that the letter was not 

suggestive and inappropriate. The DHO found otherwise. More than “some 

evidence” supports that finding. Petitioner called the officer a “cutie.” He 

commented on her “smile, sway and character.” He offered to take her away and 

become her husband. And he twice promised her that he would not “kiss and tell.” 

Petitioner’s behavior clearly disrupted and interfered with the orderly running of the 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 8 of 10
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Institution. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the District Court dismiss 

the Petition. 

IV. Recommendation 

 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District 

Court enter an order DENYING the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). 

 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. 

 However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of 

a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with 

the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

within which to file a response to the objections. If any objections are filed, this 

action should be designated case number: CV 13–2103–TUC–RM. Failure to timely 

file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be 

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues. See 

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

 The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the District Court direct the 

Clerk of Court to mail this Report and Recommendation to both the address listed in 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 9 of 10
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

the docket of this case and to Petitioner’s most recently provided address as reflected 

in the case docketed as McRae v. United States, CV 15-0439-RM. That address is: 

Andre McRae 

# 20831-057 

COLEMAN-FL-COLEMAN-II-USP 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

P.O. BOX 1034 

COLEMAN, FL 33521 

 Dated this 2nd day of November, 2016. 

Honorable Jacqueline M. Rateau 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-02103-RM Document 19 Filed 11/03/16 Page 10 of 10