Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00248/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00248-0/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

1

 Petitioner originally named Louis Winn, Warden, as Respondent. (Doc. 1, Pet.).

Respondent has moved to substitute Petitioner’s current custodian, J. T. Shartle, in place of

Louis Winn who is no longer employed at the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). (Answer at 1, n.

1). The Court will substitute J.T. Shartle, Warden, as the proper Respondent. Rule 25(d),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edmon Gasaway, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

J. T. Shartle, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-00248-TUC-RCC (CRP)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

AND ORDER

Petitioner Edmon Gasaway, proceeding pro se and confined in the Federal

Correctional Institution-Tucson, has filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. 1, Pet.). Respondent has filed a

Return and Answer to the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(Doc. 10, Answer).1

 Petitioner has filed a Response to Government’s Motion to Dismiss

supported by a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (Doc. 11, Reply). 

Petitioner is presently serving a 387-month sentence as a result of his conviction on

conspiracy and firearms offenses obtained in the Eastern District of Texas. (Answer at 2 &

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 14
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

 Respondent has provided the Declaration of Lorri Mitchell, Legal Assistant, Federal

Correctional Complex, Tucson, Arizona (Doc. 10-2, Ex. A), who has verified true copies of

certain records submitted as Attachments with Respondent’s Answer. 

- 2 -

Doc. 10-2, Ex. A, Mitchell Decl.; Doc. 10-3, Attach. 1, Judgment in a Criminal Case).2

Petitioner was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona (“USP

Tucson”) from March 29, 2013 to April 6, 2015. (Answer at 2; Doc. 10-3, Attach. 3, Inmate

History).

This matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 6, Order at 3). For the reasons that follow. the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied.

I. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

 Petitioner asserts as grounds in the Petition that his due process rights were violated

during prison discipline proceedings that resulted in his loss of good time credits. In Ground

One, Petitioner alleges that the “due process requirement was abandoned” based on the

“[f]ailure to provide adequate and meaningful investigation.” Petitioner contends that no

investigation was conducted regarding the Incident Report “as required by the applicable

administrative rules, regulations and policy statements” of the Bureau of Prisons. (Pet. at 3).

Petitioner asserts in Ground Two the unlawful taking of good time credits based on the

alleged failure to have an investigating officer investigate the charged incident after the

Incident Report issued. (Id. at 4). In Ground Three, Petitioner alleges that prison staff failed

to document his complaint about the failed investigation, that is, Petitioner contends that

during the prison discipline proceedings he alerted prison officials of the failed investigation

but his complaint was not documented. (Id. at 6). With respect to all three grounds,

Petitioner contends he was deprived of his defense to the discipline proceedings, his appeal

was prejudiced, and the unlawful taking of good time credits should be removed from his

record and his status restored. (Id. at 4-6). 

Respondent argues in the Answer that Petitioner does not have a constitutional right

to an investigation of the Incident Report, that the record shows prison staff investigated the

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 14
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 -

Incident Report, and that Petitioner received all the due process protections to which he was

entitled. (Answer at 8-9). Respondent contends that some evidence supports the discipline

decision and this case should be dismissed. (Id.). Respondent does not challenge Petitioner’s

claim that he exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his allegations. (Id. at 3).

II. Background

A. The Inmate Discipline Program 

The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) inmate discipline program identifies certain acts that

are prohibited at the prison, classifies the severity of the prohibited acts as Low, Moderate,

High and Greatest, and identifies sanctions to be imposed when an inmate is found to have

committed a prohibited act. 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, 541.3 & Tables 1-2. The discipline process

generally starts when a staff member issues an Incident Report to an inmate based on the

staff member’s observation or reasonable belief that the inmate has committed a prohibited

act. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5. The Incident Report describes the incident and generally is delivered

to the inmate within 24 hours of the staff member becoming aware of the inmate’s

involvement in the incident. Id. Following completion of a staff investigation, the Unit

Discipline Committee (“UDC”) reviews the Incident Report. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. The inmate

may appear before the UDC and may make a statement and present documentary evidence

in his behalf. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(d) & (e). The UDC may find that the inmate committed the

prohibited act, it may find that the inmate did not commit the prohibited act, or it may refer

the matter to the Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”) depending on the seriousness of the

prohibited act. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(a). 

If the Incident Report is referred, the DHO conducts a hearing at which the inmate

may appear at the DHO’s discretion. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(e)(1). After the hearing, the DHO

may find that the inmate committed the prohibited act charged or a similar prohibited act

based on the Incident Report, may find that the inmate did not commit the prohibited act, or

may refer the incident for further investigation, review and disposition. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(a).

The DHO must be an impartial decision maker who was not involved in the alleged incident

as a victim, witness or investigator or who otherwise was not significantly involved in the

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 14
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 -

incident. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(b). The DHO’s findings must be based on “at least some facts

and if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.” 28 C.F.R. §

541.8(f). The DHO provides the inmate with a written copy of the decision. The DHO’s

decision must include findings on the following issues: (1) whether the inmate was advised

of his rights; (2) the evidence relied upon; (3) the DHO’s decision; (4) the sanction imposed;

and (5) the reason for the sanction. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h). The inmate may appeal the DHO’s

decision through the Administrative Remedy Program. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(i).

B. Factual Background

On April 25, 2013, at approximately 1:45 p.m., prison staff at USP Tucson searched

the cell occupied by Petitioner and another inmate and found under a locker a 6-inch piece

of plastic sharpened to a point that had a string and tape handle. (Doc. 10-3 at 15-16, Attach.

4, Discipline Hearing Report referring to Incident Report #2437632; Doc. 10-3 at 18,

Incident Report #2437632 (“Incident Report”), Part I). The reporting prison staff member

that same date charged Petitioner in an Incident Report with a Code 104 prohibited act,

possession, manufacturing, introduction of a weapon. (Doc. 10-3 at 18, Incident Report, Part

I) . The Incident Report was delivered to Petitioner at 3:00 p.m. on April 25, 2013. (Id.).

 A Lieutenant at the prison assigned to investigate the incident provided Petitioner with

a copy of the Incident Report, advised Petitioner of his right to remain silent, and afforded

Petitioner with an opportunity to make a statement. (Doc 10-3 at 19, Attach. 4, Incident

Report, Part III). Petitioner allegedly stated that he understood his rights and said, “‘No way,

absolutely not, I just moved into that cell.’” (Id.). Petitioner did not request any witnesses.

(Id.). The Lieutenant concluded based on the Incident Report, the photograph evidence and

the inmate’s statement, that the “report of (104) Possession of a weapon, is true as written,”

and forwarded the matter to the UDC for further review. (Id.; see Doc.10-3 at 23, Evidence

Photograph). 

Petitioner appeared before the UDC on April 27, 2013. (Doc. 10-3 at 18, Attach. 4,

Incident Report, Part II). Petitioner provided a handwritten statement to the UDC. (Doc. 10-

3 at 21-22, Attach. 4, Incident Report, Part II (“see attached statement” referring to the

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 14
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 -

attached unsigned handwritten statement)). Petitioner wrote in the statement that the

Incident Report charging “possession 104” was “a big mistake;” that “we clean and check

our cell on a daily basis for contraband, and we make sure that each of us and our property

is free of such.” (Doc. 10-3 at 22, Attach. 4). Petitioner also wrote that “[t]he officer reported

that he found a weapon under a locker. This is impossible, cause the last I checked, the

lockers were bolted to the wall and floor.” (Id.). Based on the severity of the alleged

incident, the UDC referred the charge to the DHO for further hearing. (Doc. 10-3 at 18,

Attach. 4, Incident Report, Part II). 

On April 27, 2013, Petitioner was given Notice of a Hearing before the DHO. (Doc.

10-3 at 24, Attach. 4, Notice of Discipline Hearing before the DHO). Petitioner requested

the presence of a staff representative but did not request the presence of any witnesses. (Id.).

Petitioner was given notice of his rights at the discipline hearing. (Doc. 10-3 at 25, Attach.

4, Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing). 

Petitioner appeared before the DHO on June 4, 2013. (Doc. 10-3 at 16-17, Attach. 4,

Disciple Hearing Report for Incident Report #2437632). Petitioner’s requested staff

representative appeared at the hearing and provided the following statement: “It was not

specific where it was found but he does not have a violent history. You can access it from

it [sic] behind.” (Doc. 10-3 at 16, Attach. 4, Discipline Hearing Report). Petitioner denied

the charge. (Doc. 10-3 at 16-17, Attach. 4, Discipline Hearing Report). The Discipline

Hearing Report shows that “Inmate Gasaway stated I had no knowledge of it in the room or

under the locker.” (Id.). Petitioner did not request any witnesses. (Id.).

The DHO found that Petitioner committed the prohibited act of possession of a

weapon, Code 104, as charged based on the “greater weight of the evidence.” (Doc. 10-3 at

17, Discipline Hearing Report, ¶¶ IV-V). In making this finding, the DHO relied on the

reporting officer’s written account of the incident stating he found the plastic piece sharpened

to a point with a string and tape handle under a locker in the cell belonging to Petitioner and

another inmate, the photograph, and Petitioner’s written statement denying knowledge of the

weapon. (Id.). The DHO considered Petitioner’s staff representative’s statement “that the

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 14
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 -

incident report is not specific on where it was found and explained the knife was found in a

common area of the cell,” and Petitioner’s statement that he did not know “it was in the room

or under the locker.” (Id.). The DHO commented as part of her findings that, “Inmates are

responsible for items found within their area of responsibility. DHO holds all inmates

accountable for items found in their area of responsibility to include items found under their

lockers. It would be difficult to access that space under the locker.” (Id.). The DHO

sanctioned Petitioner by imposing 90 days of disciplinary segregation, suspended pending

180 days clear conduct; disallowance of good conduct time for 27 days; and 180 days of lost

commissary privileges. (Id., ¶ VI). The DHO set forth her reasons for the action taken and

notified Petitioner of his appeal rights. (Id., ¶¶ VII & VIII). The DHO report was delivered

to Petitioner on July 19, 2013. (Id., ¶ IX).

Petitioner appealed the DHO’s findings to the Western Regional Office. (Answer at

6; Doc. 10-3 at 30-31, Attach. 5, Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal; Doc. 10-4,

Attach. 6, Administrative Remedy History at p. 55). Petitioner contended that the Incident

Report was not investigated and did not specify under which locker the weapon was found;

that the area under the locker could not be considered a common area; and that there was not

sufficient evidence of guilty because the reporting officer did not state under which locker

the weapon was found. (Doc. 10-3 at 31, Attach. 5). On September 12, 2013, the Regional

Director denied Petitioner’s appeal, finding that Petitioner had been afforded due process,

that the DHO had indicated the basis of the decision, and that Petitioner was “unable to

present credible or verifiable evidence which exonerate[d] [him] from the charge ...” (Doc.

10-4 at 62-63, Attach. 7, Regional Administrative Remedy Response). With respect to

Petitioner’s claim that the investigation was improper, the Regional Director pointed out that

Petitioner did not complain about the investigation during the hearing, and “inmates are

afforded the opportunity to present or request evidence for review or consideration at the

UDC or DHO hearing, not during the appeal process.” (Id.).

Petitioner appealed to the Central Office in October 2013. (Doc. 10-4 at 64-65,

Attach. 8, Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal; Doc. 10-4, Attach. 6 at p. 58).

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 6 of 14
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 -

The Central Office denied Petitioner’s appeal, with the Acting Administrator for National

Inmate Appeals finding that the discipline proceedings complied with Program Statement

5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program, that “[t]he evidence presented at the DHO hearing ...

was sufficient enough to determine you committed the prohibited act (Code 104),” and that

Petitioner’s due process rights had been upheld. (Doc. 10-4 at 66-67, Attach. 9). The Acting

Administrator further concluded as follows:

Program Statement 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program, Appendix C, Inmate

Rights and Responsibilities, stipulates that inmates are to keep their area free

of contraband. Therefore, you are responsible for the weapon found in your

cell. Based on the above and your lack of evidence to the contrary, we find

your denial of responsibility carries insufficient weight to vindicate you.

(Id.). 

III. Discussion

Federal prisoners have a right by statute to good time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624.

Habeas corpus jurisdiction is available under § 2241 “for a prisoner’s claims that he has been

denied good time credits without due process of law.” See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267,

1269 (9th Cir. 1989). “[A] claim challenging prison disciplinary proceedings is cognizable”

under the federal habeas statute “only if it will ‘necessarily spell speedier release’ from

custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future

date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody.” Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d

992, 995 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing, inter alia, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011)). This

may include a petitioner’s claim seeking “expungement of a disciplinary finding from his

record.” Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1269. Petitioner complains about the loss of good time credits

and seeks to have the Incident Report removed from his record. Respondent notes that

Petitioner has a projected release date of November 29, 2024 “via Good Conduct.” (Answer

at 2, citing Doc. 10-3 at 8, Attach. 2). Petitioner’s sentence appears affected by the loss of

good time credits. The Court has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition.

To satisfy the basic requirements of due process in the context of prison discipline

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 7 of 14
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 -

proceedings, prison officials need only provide an inmate with: (1) a written notice of the

charge at least 24 hours prior to any hearing; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present

documentary evidence in his defense when such action will not be unduly hazardous to

institutional safety or correctional goals; and, (3) a written statement by the factfinders as to

the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 565-66 (1974). 

Due process further requires only that disciplinary findings be supported by “some

evidence” in the record. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,

454-55 (1985). This standard is met when “there is any evidence in the record that could

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56. While this is a

“minimally stringent” standard, “there must be some indicia of reliability of the information

that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th

Cir. 1987). The “some evidence standard” does not require the court to examine the entire

disciplinary record, independently assess the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the

evidence. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455.

A. Petitioner’s Failure to Investigate Allegation 

The three grounds alleged in the Petition are based in part on Petitioner’s claim that

he was denied due process because the Incident Report was not investigated.

 The record shows that the Incident Report was investigated by a prison staff

Lieutenant who provided Petitioner with a copy of the report, advised Petitioner of his rights,

reviewed the reporting officer’s report and the evidence photograph, recorded Petitioner’s

statement denying that he possessed a weapon, and noted that Petitioner did not request any

witnesses. Following this investigation, the matter was referred to the UDC. Petitioner’s

conclusory claim that the Incident Report was not investigated in compliance with prison

procedures is not supported by the record. 

As Respondent shows in the Answer, 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b) provides as follows

regarding the investigation procedures:

(b) Investigation. After you receive an incident report, a Bureau staff

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 8 of 14
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

- 9 -

member will investigate it.

(1) Information: The Investigator will specifically inform you:

(A) of the charge(s) against you; and

(B) that you may remain silent at all stages of the discipline process, but

that your silence may be used to draw an adverse inference against you

at any stage of the process. Your silence alone, however, cannot be the

basis for finding you committed the prohibited act(s).

(2) Statement: When the investigator asks for your statement, you may give

an explanation of the incident, request any witnesses be interviewed, or

request that other evidence be obtained and reviewed. However, the

staff investigation of the incident report may be suspended before

requesting your statement if it is being investigated for possible

criminal prosecution. 

(3) Informally resolving the incident report. The incident report may be

informally resolved at any stage of the disciplinary process, except for

prohibited acts in the Greatest and High severity levels, or as otherwise

required by law or these regulations. If the incident report is informally

resolved, it will be removed from your records.

(Answer at 3-4, citing 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b)). 

Petitioner does not refer to any part of this provision that was not followed in the

discipline proceedings. The Wolff due process requirements do not require specific

investigation procedures. Petitioner has not contended in his Petition or Reply that during

the investigation he requested that other evidence be obtained or reviewed. “A habeas claim

cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOP's purported violation of its own program

statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of federal

law.” Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent that Petitioner

asserts in support of Grounds One through Three that the Incident Report was not

investigated, he is not entitled to habeas relief on that basis. 

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 9 of 14
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

- 10 -

B. “Some Evidence” Supports the DHO’s Discipline Determination

In support of Ground One, Petitioner alleges that if staff had performed “the required

investigation,”and the reporting officer had identified “the exact locker which the alleged

weapon was found,” it would have shown he is not guilty of the charge. (Pet. at 3). Petitioner

further clarifies his failure to investigate claim by asserting in his Reply that the DHO’s

determination that Petitioner possessed a weapon was not supported by “some evidence:” 

The investigating officer failed to provide a ‘reasonable investigation’ which,

if performed properly would have exonerated Petitioner and this is the reason

why: It would have led to the reporting officer going back to the scene in the

cell and identifying for the investigating officer, which of the two lockers the

alleged weapon was located under. Which evidence is [crucial] in supporting

the ‘some evidence requirement.’ Especially when identifying the guilty party

in this matter. Even Petitioner’s Staff Representative stated for the record that

the incident report failed to identify which of the two lockers the weapon was

located under. Why, because this is a very important part of the investigation

that would identify who’s assigned area the weapon was located in. ...

Furthermore, the investigating Officer’s failure to verify the validity of the

base assumption that a weapon was found under Petitioner’s locker, fails to

provide an impartial fact finder sufficient evidence that the alleged weapon

was found in petitioner’s ‘assigned area’ of the cell. Suggesting that

Petitioner’s good time credits were wrongfully taken. And should be

reinstated.

(Reply at 2). Petitioner goes on to argue that a reasonable investigation consists of more than

the taking of statements from the accused or delivery of the incident report, especially when

there is inconsistency in the reporting officer’s report regarding in which of the assigned

areas the weapon was found. (Id.). 

Petitioner relies on Jarrett v. Cross, Civil No. 12-CV-690-DRH, 2012 WL 3611834

(S.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012), in support of his argument. Jarrett, a federal prisoner, claimed he

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 10 of 14
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

- 11 -

was disciplined in violation of due process procedural protections when he was found guilty

of possessing a homemade weapon without “some evidence” that he possessed the weapon.

Jarrett shared a cell with another inmate and the reporting officer stated that the weapon was

found under Jarrett’s locker in a common area of the cell accessible to both inmates. The

DHO decided that Jarrett was responsible for a weapon found in the space under his locker

because that space was assigned to him. The DHO rejected the suggestion that the space

under Jarrett's locker was a common area. The district court denied Jarrett’s § 2241 petition,

concluding as follows that “some evidence” supported the DHO’s finding, 

“[t]he Court asks “whether there is any evidence in the record that could

support the conclusion reached” by the DHO. Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d

649, 652 (7th Cir.2000) (emphasis in original). This standard is met with

evidence of constructive possession. Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341,

345–46 (7th Cir.1992); Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 679–80 (8th

Cir.1990). ... [A] finding that the weapon was found in a common space

accessible to both Jarrett and Dante Hardin [the other inmate] would not reveal

a violation of the Due Process Clause.” 

Jarrett, at *1. 

The doctrine of constructive possession may satisfy Hill’s “some evidence” standard

where there is no direct evidence that an inmate actually possessed a weapon. See Hamilton,

976 F.2d at 346 (“some evidence” standard met based on finding that homemade weapons

were found in a cell occupied by plaintiff and three other inmates); Mason, 898 F.2d at 680

(“some evidence” standard met when contraband was found in a locker to which two inmates

had access). (See Answer at 11). 

Petitioner challenged the constructive possession theory in his appeals. (Doc. 10-3,

Attach. 5; Doc. 10-4, Attach. 8). During the discipline proceedings, Petitioner either denied

possessing the sharpened item or denied knowledge of it. Petitioner’s staff representative

stated on his behalf that it was not specific where the weapon was found. The DHO afforded

“greater weight” to the reporting officer’s account that the weapon was found under a locker

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 11 of 14
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

- 12 -

in the cell occupied by Petitioner and another inmate. The DHO explained as part of her

findings that inmates are responsible for items found in their area of responsibility. There

was no competent evidence showing that Petitioner and his cellmate did not have access to

the area where the weapon was found. The evidence on which the DHO relied is sufficient

to meet the standards of due process. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 456 (“the evidence before the

disciplinary board was sufficient to meet the requirements imposed by the Due Process

Clause. The disciplinary board received evidence in the form of testimony from the prison

guard and copies of his written report.”); Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1271 (regarding a prison

disciplinary determination, “[t]he reporting officer’s testimony constituted sufficient

evidence to support the finding of guilty.”). The court does not assess the credibility of the

witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Petitioner’s discipline determination is supported by

“some evidence.”

C. Petitioner’s Alleged Undocumented Complaint of No Investigation

Petitioner contends in Ground Three that he alerted the UDC and the DHO of his

complaint that the Incident Report was not investigated but his complaint was not

documented. The record shows that Petitioner provided a lengthy handwritten statement to

the UDC but did not there complain that the Incident Report had not been investigated. Even

if Petitioner made a verbal complaint to the UDC or to the DHO that the Incident Report was

not investigated, his argument that it was “crucial” to a finding of guilt that the evidence

show that the weapon was found under his locker is misplaced. Based on the record and the

DHO’s findings, the weapon was found under a locker in a cell Petitioner occupied with

another inmate and an inmate is “accountable for items found in their area of responsibility

to include items found under their lockers.” (Doc. 10-3 at 17, Attach. 4, ¶ V). Petitioner’s

Ground Three does not provide a basis for relief. 

D. Petitioner was Afforded Due Process During the Discipline Proceedings

The record shows that Petitioner was provided the required notice of the discipline

charge in the Incident Report, he was afforded the opportunity to call witnesses but chose

not to do so, he appeared at the DHO hearing with a staff representative who made a

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 12 of 14
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

- 13 -

statement in his behalf, and he was provided with a written statement by the DHO regarding

the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the discipline action. Petitioner does not

contend that the DHO was involved in the alleged incident as a victim, witness, investigator

or otherwise. Petitioner’s discipline determination is supported by “some evidence” and the

requirements of due process were satisfied. Petitioner’s Grounds One through Three asserted

in his Petition should be rejected as without merit. 

IV. Conclusion

The Magistrate Judge recommends the determination that Grounds One through Three

asserted in the Petition do not provide a basis for relief under § 2241. The Court will order

the substitution of J.T. Shartle as Respondent in place of Louis Winn, Warden. 

//

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

after its independent review deny the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For A Writ Of Habeas

Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody (Doc. 1).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and LRCiv 7.2(e) of the Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of

Arizona, any party may serve and file written objections within Fourteen (14) Days after

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to

another party’s objections within Fourteen (14) Days after being served with a copy.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). No replies to objections shall be filed unless leave is granted from

the District Court to do so. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case

number: CV-15-00248-TUC-RCC.

Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to de novo review of the issues. See

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

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 13 of 14
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

- 14 -

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that J.T. Shartle is substituted as Respondent in place of Louis

Winn, Warden. 

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2016.

 

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 14 of 14