Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00906/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00906-0/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

 The docket sheet shows Petitioner’s first name as “Edmond.” Petitioner has signed

his first name as “Edmon” on the Petition and other papers filed in this case.

2

 Respondent has provided the Declaration of Catherine Smithers, Legal Assistant,

Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, Arizona (Doc. 12-2, Ex. A), who has verified as

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edmond Gasaway, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Louis W. Winn, Jr., Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00906-TUC-RCC (CRP)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Edmond Gasaway,1

 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. § 2241for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and

Motion to Dismiss Petition. (Doc. 12, Answer). Petitioner has filed a Response and Answer

to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition. (Doc. 15, 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 &

Doc. 12-2, Ex. A, Smithers’ Decl., Attach. 1).2

 Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 9
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

custodian of records true copies of certain records submitted as Attachments with

Respondent’s Answer.

- 2 -

Correctional Institution at Ray Brook, New York (“FCI Ray Brook”) from January 27, 2011,

to March 15, 2013. (Doc. 12-2, Attach. 3).

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

Recommendation. (Doc. 6, Order). 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 in the Petition that on January 22, 2013, prison staff officers at FCI

Ray Brook entered his cell, removed Petitioner, and then searched his cell, claiming to have

found a razor inside an envelope with Petitioner’s name on it. (Pet. at 4). Petitioner contends

that the prison officers fabricated two Incident Reports, one claiming that Petitioner

threatened another with bodily harm, and the other claiming that Petitioner possessed a

weapon. (Id.). Petitioner contends that one of the officers retrieved a razor from his shirt

pocket, officers then photographed the razor blade, and the officers presented the “staged

photo” during the disciplinary proceedings. (Id.) Petitioner contends it is “highly

impossible” for an inmate in the special housing unit to obtain a shaving razor due to prison

procedures. (Id. at 4-5). Petitioner asserts as Ground One that he was falsely charged based

on fabricated evidence. (Id.). 

Petitioner asserts as Ground Two that he was denied an impartial decision maker in

violation of his due process rights. (Id. at 5). In support of this ground, Petitioner contends

that the Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”) tried to persuade Petitioner to proceed without

his staff representative, told Petitioner he was going to find him guilty as charged, and told

Petitioner he could not file a police report or undergo a polygraph. (Id.). Petitioner asserts

that the DHO allegedly stated it did not matter if Petitioner had “Johnny Cochern [sic], he

was going to find him guilty as charged any way,” and this showed the DHO’s racial bias.

(Id. at 5-6). Petitioner contends that his loss of good time credits was the result of bias and

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 9
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 -

he seeks to have the discipline incident expunged from his prison record and a return to his

status prior to being falsely accused. (Id.).

Respondent argues in the Answer that Petitioner was afforded all the due process to

which he was entitled and the disciplinary sanctions imposed against him were based on

“some evidence.” (Answer at 6). Respondent contends that the habeas petition should be

denied. Respondent does not challenge Petitioner’s claim that he exhausted his administrative

remedies regarding his allegations. (Id. at 2). 

In his Reply, Petitioner reasserts the circumstances regarding his claims of fabricated

charges and bias. (Doc. 15 at 2-5). He contends, as he did in his Petition, that on the day of

the hearing, he witnessed the investigating and charging officers along with the DHO

gathered in an office discussing what action should be taken against him “cause they all were

tried [sic] of dealing with Gasaway.” (Id. at 5-6). Petitioner contends this was also reported

to him by a trustee. (Id. at 5). Petitioner asserts that he has been retaliated against because

he filed an “administrative remedy claim against Ray Brook for unconstitutional living

conditions,” referring to Gasaway v. Perdue, 9:11-cv-01272. (Id. at 9). Petitioner has

provided a copy of a “Complaint of Staff Misconduct” dated May 25, 2013 that appears to

have been submitted to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and which contains Petitioner’s

signature. (Doc. 15 at 20). Petitioner claims in this “complaint” that he was threatened by

a prison staff member regarding his filing grievances about the officers’ misconduct and

about living conditions at the Special Housing Unit. (Id.). He reasserts his claim that an

officer “orchestrated the placing of the razor blade” in his property. (Id.).

II. Background

A. The Inmate Discipline Program

The 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

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 9
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 -

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 prohibited act 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 the 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

on 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 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

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 DHO’s 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. Background Facts

On January 22, 2013, prison staff at FCI Ray Brook randomly searched Petitioner’s

property and allegedly found a razor blade inside an envelope with Petitioner’s name and

number on it. (Doc. 12-2, Attach. 4, Incident Report #2400121). On that same date, the

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 9
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 -

reporting prison staff member charged Petitioner in an Incident Report with a Code 104

prohibited act, possession of a weapon, and delivered the Incident Report to Petitioner. (Id.).

A Lieutenant at FCI Ray Brook assigned to investigate the incident advised Petitioner

of his right to remain silent and afforded Petitioner with an opportunity to make a statement.

(Id., Attach. 4 at 2). Petitioner did not request any witnesses. (Id.). The Lieutenant

concluded based on the Incident Report that the report was justified and referred the matter

to the UDC for further disposition. (Id.). 

Petitioner appeared before the UDC on January 25, 2013 and claimed he had been “set

up by the officer.” (Id., Attach. 4 at 1). Based on the officer’s written report, the

investigation, and Petitioner’s statement, the UDC determined that the matter warranted

further hearing and referred the report to the DHO. (Id.). 

On January 25, 2013, Petitioner was given Notice of a Hearing before the DHO.

(Doc. 12-2, Attach. 5, Notice of Discipline Hearing before the DHO). Petitioner requested

the presence of a staff representative and the testimony of two witnesses. (Id.). Petitioner was

provided with notice of his rights at the discipline hearing. (Doc. 12-2, Attach. 6, Inmate

Rights at Discipline Hearing). 

Petitioner appeared before the DHO on February 12, 2013. (Doc. 12-2, Attach. 7,

DHO Report for Incident Report #2400121). Petitioner’s requested staff representative

appeared at the hearing. (Id. at 1). Petitioner denied the charges against him and stated he

never possessed a weapon. (Id.). Petitioner’s two witnesses appeared and testified that

Petitioner did not threaten anyone and they knew nothing about a weapon. (Id. at 2). The

DHO found that Petitioner had committed the charged Code 104 prohibited act, that is,

possession, manufacture or introduction of a weapon. (Id. at 2). The DHO stated as the basis

of the decision the reporting officer’s written statement that he had found the weapon in

Petitioner’s property and the photographs of the confiscated weapon. (Id.). The DHO

considered Petitioner’s statement denying that he possessed a weapon and the testimony of

the two witnesses but found that the greater weight of evidence consisted of the statement

of the reporting officer and the fact that the weapon was found in Petitioner’s property. (Id.).

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 5 of 9
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 -

The DHO sanctioned Petitioner by imposing 60 days of disciplinary segregation,

disallowance of 40 days of good conduct time, and 180 days of visiting, commissary,

telephone and email restrictions. (Id.). The DHO set forth his reasons for the action taken

and notified Petitioner of his appeal rights. (Id. at 3). A prison staff member delivered the

DHO report to Petitioner on February 19, 2013. (Id. at 3).

III. Discussion

Petitioner seeks the restoration of lost good time credits as a result of an alleged

improper prison disciplinary decision. (Pet. at 5-6; Doc. 15 at 11). 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)). The court has jurisdiction

over this habeas action. 

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

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

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 6 of 9
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 -

“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. 

Petitioner does not contend he did not receive the required notice or that he was not

provided with a written statement by the DHO regarding the evidence relied upon and the

reasons for the disciplinary action. (Doc. 15 at 4). Petitioner also does not contend that he

was denied a staff representative or the testimony of his two witnesses at the hearing. (Id.).

Petitioner makes clear in his Reply that he is contesting the fact that he was denied a hearing

by an impartial hearing officer, that the evidence relied upon consisted of a staged

photograph of a razor blade, and the DHO was not sufficiently impartial because he had

personal knowledge of the alleged false charges. (Doc. 15 at 4, 8-10). 

 Petitioner’s contention in Ground One is that it is “highly impossible” that an inmate

can possess a razor blade due to the prison procedures he describes in his Petition.

Petitioner’s allegation is not sufficient to refute the charge made by the reporting officer or

the determination by the DHO that Petitioner possessed the weapon. Even a fabricated or

false charge of misconduct does not amount to a per se due process violation. See Freeman

v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986). The filing of a false disciplinary charge by a

correctional officer does not state a due process violation when the accused inmate is given

a subsequent hearing on the charge and afforded the procedural protections outlined in Wolff.

Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984).

The record shows that the DHO considered Petitioner’s statement and the testimony

of Petitioner’s two witnesses. The DHO gave greater weight to the reporting officer’s report,

the documentary evidence, including the photographs of the weapon, and that the weapon

was found in Petitioner’s property. The reporting officer’s testimony can constitute sufficient

evidence to support the disciplinary finding. Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1271. The “some evidence”

deferential standard of Hill applies to the findings of the prison disciplinary hearing officer

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 7 of 9
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 -

where the inmate has alleged that a prison guard has falsely accused him of violating a prison

rule. Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (in the context of a civil rights

claim). See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The “some evidence”

standard [of Hill] applies only to due process claims attacking the result of a disciplinary

board's proceeding, not the correctional officer's retaliatory accusation.”). Here, Petitioner

is making a due process challenge to the DHO’s disciplinary decision on the ground that

there was no evidence to support the decision. The DHO’s decision was supported by some

evidence and due process standards were satisfied. 

 Regarding Petitioner’s claim of bias by the DHO in Ground Two, Petitioner’s staff

representative appeared at the hearing before the DHO as did Petitioner’s two witnesses who

testified. There is no evidence in the record that shows that the DHO was involved in the

incident as a victim, witness, investigator, or otherwise. Petitioner’s contention that the DHO

knew the charge in the Incident Report was false is conclusory. Petitioner has not asserted

any connection between the DHO and Petitioner’s alleged claim about living conditions at

FCI-Ray Brook. 

The DHO’s Report contains the report of Petitioner’s staff representative as stating,

“After hearing the decision of the DHO, Lt. Moore stated in his opinion the hearing was fair

and the inmate’s rights were upheld.” (Doc. 12-2, Attach. 7 at 1). The DHO provided the

basis for his decision and that finding was based on “some evidence.” The DHO’s finding

does not show that Petitioner was denied an impartial decision maker in violation of due

process. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (unfavorable or adverse

rulings alone are not sufficient to show bias unless they reflect extreme favoritism or

antagonism that the exercise of fair judgment was precluded). 

IV. 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

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 8 of 9
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 -

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-13-00906-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). 

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2016.

Case 4:13-cv-00906-RCC Document 22 Filed 06/03/16 Page 9 of 9