Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00128/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00128-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Burnam,

Petitioner, 

v.

Dennis R. Smith, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-128-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R

& R”) (Doc. 19), which recommends the denial of Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus, filed March 16, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 8). For the reasons

set forth below, the Court will adopt the R & R.

DISCUSSION

On February 23, 2011, while Petitioner was incarcerated at the United States

Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, an Incident Report was prepared charging him with

Making Sexual Proposals. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) determined

that the evidence supported a different and lesser charge—Interfering with Staff in

Performance of Duty—and sanctioned Petitioner accordingly. Petitioner argues that his due

process rights were violated because he was not provided advance notice of the reduced

charge and therefore was unable to defend himself adequately. 

The R & R found that Petitioner was afforded the due process rights to which he was

entitled under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–67 (1974). (Doc. 19 at 4.) He was

Case 2:12-cv-00128-PGR Document 22 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 2
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 -

provided a copy of the Incident Report; advised of, and waived, his right to call witnesses

and have the assistance of a staff representative; provided a copy of the disciplinary report;

and he appeared before a sufficiently impartial decision maker. (Id.) The R & R also found

that the decision of the DHO was supported by “some evidence” as required by

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454–55 (1985). (Id. at 7.)

Having reviewed the matter de novo in the light of Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 20),

the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Burns that Petitioner’s due process rights were not

violated. In concluding that Petitioner committed the lesser violation, the DHO’s detailed

findings took into account all of the evidence concerning to the incident, which included the

facts relevant to both violations. Petitioner was not deprived of the opportunity to present any

relevant evidence, and the evidence cited by the DOH was sufficient to support a finding of

Interference with Staff.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is

ADOPTED IN FULL. The amended habeas petition (Doc. 8) is DENIED and DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00128-PGR Document 22 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 2