Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06035/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Billups
Appellant
T. C. Martin
Appellee

Document Text:

CHARLES 

v. 

BILLUPS, 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

AUG 171990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6035 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1977-P) 

( W. D. Okla. ) 

T.C. MARTIN, Warden, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Charles Billups, a prose petitioner, brought this action for 

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking 

relief from disciplinary action taken against him as an inmate at 

the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, Oklahoma. Billups 

complained that the Bureau of Prisons and the Institution 

Disciplinary Committee acted arbitrarily and capriciously in 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 1 
punishing him for possession of contraband and marijuana. 

Specifically, Billups claimed that the evidence did not support a 

finding that he had committed the infraction, that disciplinary 

action was improper where no criminal prosecution occurred, and 

that several procedural deficiencies in the disciplinary process 

render the action of the Disciplinary Committee invalid. The 

district court denied the petition and this appeal followed. 

On appeal, Billups renews the same arguments he raised below, 

with one addition. Billups now claims that the hearing officer at 

his disciplinary hearing was not impartial. Billups is precluded 

from raising this issue for the first time on appeal. Schepp v. 

Fremont County, Wyo., 900 F.2d 1448, 1454 n.7 (10th Cir. 1990) 

(citing Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1264 (10th Cir. 1988); 

Denis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 846, 848-49 (11th Cir. 

1986); Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co., 665 F.2d 305, 310 (10th 

Cir. 1981)). Bearing in mind the liberal construction afforded 

pro se pleadings, we have reviewed the entire record and we 

conclude, as did the district court, that Billups did not contend, 

in his petition below, that the hearing officer was not impartial. 

As the district court noted, a prisoner subject to 

disciplinary action is entitled to notice of the allegations 

against him, the opportunity to be heard and present witnesses, 

and a neutral factfinder that puts its findings on record. Wolff 

v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). So long as the disciplinary 

proceeding meets the constitutional constraints in Wolff, failure 

to strictly satisfy purely administrative rules and regulations 

does not itself entitle a prisoner to habeas relief. See 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 2 
M=a=r~c=h=e=s=a=n=i=----'v~·=-~M=c=C=u=n=e=, 531 F.2d 459, 462 (10th Cir. 1976) 

("[R]ights and privileges which are not constitutionally 

guaranteed must necessarily be varied in application in order to 

accommodate the particular needs and exigencies of the penal 

environment. Prisoners are, by definition, prisoners."); Turner 

v. Henman, 829 F.2d 612, 614-15 (7th Cir. 1987). The fact that no 

criminal violation is proved as a result of the infraction does 

not preclude appropriate disciplinary action arising from the same 

incident. Rusher v. Arnold, 550 F.2d 896 (3d Cir. 1977). 

Applying these principles, the district court concluded that 

the disciplinary proceeding satisfied the requirements of Wolff 

and that there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary 

decision. For substantially the same reasons set out in the 

district court's well reasoned Memorandum Opinion, we affirm the 

district court's judgment. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 3 
.. ,,:~ r ,..~ .. .. : 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR Tltet: (~:-.:; '. ·•~ ~ .},i 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA J~ 11 8 90 

~-::-;, , ,,:,:: ·•, 

CHARLES BILLUPS, ) 

r, ,,. .. . ~ r- • • • • r ,, ,; • ,. ' ' .'I . .... ... -.. 1 ' ., .,, , ..... 

) 

Petitioner ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

No. CIV-89-1977-P ~ 

T. C. MARTIN, ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

,~.~ ' ,• -

:.' t ...... 

MEMQRANOUM OPINION 

Petitioner, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution, 

El Reno , Oklahoma, is proceeding RI.Q u for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. §2241. The respondent has filed a response 

to the petition tor a writ of habeas corpus. The Court finds that 

the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies and that 

no evidentiary hearing is necessary, as the matter can be resolved 

on the basis of the record. ~ Edgemon v. Lockhart, 768 F.2d 252 

(8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1085 (1986). 

The relevant facts are that while incarcerated at FCI-El Reno, 

the petitioner was found guilty of possession of narcotics or 

related paraphernalia not prescribed !or the individual. The 

petitioner argues that the Bureau of Prisons and the Institution 

Disciplinary Collllnittee acted arbitrarily and capriciously in 

violation or his due process rights by finding him guilty and 

punishing him after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had 

investigated the case and then administratively clo~ed the case 

against him. Petitioner's claim is without merit. The FBI was 

investigating possible criminal charges, not violation of prison 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 4 
rules. Even the acquittal of a prisoner on criminal charges does 

not prevent prison officials from disciplining the prisoner for an 

infraction of prison rules, even though the charges in the prison 

disciplir,ary action arose from the same incident. Rusher v. 

Arnol d, 550 F . 2d 896 (3rd Cir. 

F.Su pp. 32 (W . D. Okla. 1980) . 

1977 ) ; Rucker v. Meachum, 513 

The Institution Di sciplinary Comrni ttee' s actions were not 

arbi trary, capricious, or in violation of petitioner's due process. 

A pri soner ha s a due process right to be free from arbitrary 

acti ons of prison offi cial s, but once the prisoner has been 

afforded notice of the allegations against him, the opportunity to 

be heard and present witnesses, and an adjudication by a neutral 

factfinder that puts its findings on record, the role of the 

reviewing court is limited to determining whether there was 

sufficient evidence to supporc the disciplinary decision. 

superintendent v. Hill, 472 u.s. 445 (1985) ~ Wolff v. McDonnell, 

4 18 U.S. 539 (1974). 

The Court has reviewed the records provided by the petitioner 

and has determined that the petitioner received all due process 

r i ghts required by the Bureau of Prisons under its internal 

regulations and Wolff . Under Wolff, the inmate is .enti tled to 

advance writ ten notice within 24 hours of the hearing in order to 

give the charged party a chance to marshal facts in his defense; 

a wri tten record as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for 

sancti ons taken suffi c i ent for review purposes; an opportunity to · 

cal l witnesses and present documentary evidence; and an impartial 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 5 
hearing. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. Additionally, 28 C.F.R. 

§541.l7(f) provides: 

(f) The IDC shall consider all evidence presented 

at the hearing shall make a decision based on at least 

some facts, and if there is conflicting evidence, it must 

be based on the greater weight of the evidence. 

Se~~ Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 879 (3rd cir. 1987), \ 

cert. denied, 484 U.S . 837 (1987). 

The petitioner in this case received written notice of the 

charges on November 7, 1987, and a disciplinary hearing was held 

on November 30, 1987. The written report of the investigating 

officer is a sufficient written record under the Wolff guidelines. 

The report contains specific evidence relied upon to support the 

finding of guilt. The Institution Disciplinary Cow.:rnittee report 

documents that the petitioner called three witnesses in his behalf. 

The petitioner does not contend that the hearing officer was not 

impartial. The Court finds that the disciplinary hearing satisfied 

the requirements of Wolf{ and the regulations and that there was 

sufficient evidence to support the decision. 

Petitioner additionally alleges that the Bureau of Prisons 

violated several of its own regulations and policies and by so 

doing deprived the petitioner of due process. The failure to 

strictly comply with administrative rules and regulations does not 

in itself entitle a prisoner to habeas relief unless the procedure 

actually used violated the Constitution. Turner v. Henman, 829 

F.2d 612, 614-615 (7th Cir. 1987). Absent any allegation that the 

ultimate determination would have differed had there been strict 

compliance with the regulations and inasmuch as the petitioner 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 6 
received the equivalent of review required by the regulations in 

Wolff, supra, any error was harmless. 

The first alleged violation occurred when an incident report 

was not given within 24 hours of the time the staff became aware 

of the incident. The incident occurred on September 18, 1987, and 

the petitioner was not given an incident report until three days 

later, on September 21, 1987. 28 C.F.R. 541.lS(a) (1987) provides 

that the staff shall give each inmate charged with violating a 

Bureau rule written notice of the charges ordinarily within 24 

hours after the staff became aware of the inmate's involvement in 

the incident. Although the petitioner alleges that the rule in 

effect in September of 1987 did not include the word 11 ordinarily,t 

the Court has examined the rule in effect at that time and found 

that it does · include the word "ordinarily." Moreover, the 

petitioner has failed to show how a 3-day delay deprived him of any 

due process. 

Next, the petitioner argues that the Unit Disciplinary 

Committee hearing was not held within two days of the date staff 

became aware o.f the incident. 28 C.F.R. §541.14(1) provides, 

however, that when it appears likely that the incident may be the 

subject of a criminal prosecution, the investigating officer shall 

suspend~• investigation and staff may not question the inmate 

until the FBI interviews have been completed or until the agency 

responsible for the investigation advises the staff that 

questioning may occur. In the instant case, the FBI released the 

case on November 6, 1987, and the Bureau of Prisons staff completed 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 7 
its investigation the same day. The Unit Disciplinary Committee 

hearing waa then held on November 7, 1987. Thus, the Bureau of 

Prisons complied with the regulations. Additionally, the 

petitioner argues that the reason for the delay in the Unit 

Disciplinary Committee hearing was not noted on the incident 

report. As previously stated, however, the hearing was not delayed 

but simply suspended pursuant to the regulations so that the FBI 

could complete its investigation. 

Petitioner's next complaint is related to the previous one. 

Petitioner argues that the Bureau of Prisons staff failed to o.btain 

approval of the warden for postponing the Unit Disciplinary 

Committee hearing beyond five days. Again, as stated above, the 

Unit Disciplinary Committee hearing was held pursuant to the 

regulations. The hearing was within one day after the prison staff 

completed its investigation. Finally, the petitioner argues that 

the Institution Disciplinary Committee hearing was not held until 

23 days after the Unit Disciplinary Committee hearing and this 

deprived him of due process. Petitioner, however, does not 

indicate what prison regulation or policy this violated. The court 

finds that the hearing satisfied the requirements of Wolff. Wolff 

requires ~~tan inmate be given at least 24 hours to.prepare his ... defense. _, •'.rh• petitioner does not allege that he was given .•• 

inadequate time to prepare his defense. Petitioner has failed to 

show how the length of time between the Institution Disciplinary 

Committee hearing and the Unit Disciplinary committee hearing· 

deprived him ot his constitutional rights. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 8 
The Court finds that the Bureau of Prisons followed their own 

regulations and policies and that in any event any alleged 

violation did not violate the petitioner• s due process. The 

petitioner was given a hearing that satisfied the requirements of 

Wolff. For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that this case 

is without merit, accordingly, judgment ~ill issue denying the 

petition for habeas corpus. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this l#h day of January, 1990. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

; · ·. ,· ~ ~ ' • ·· ·. , .. ..... . . .,,. . ..... . ., .. 1-11-12> 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 9 
. 

-

~- ..a I"! rs r·~ r·:r~. 

IN THE UNITED S'l'ATES DISTRICT COURT FO~ i'ib~:.~ ~-J 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JAN 11 8 90 

CHARLES BILLUPS, ) ('1 • • I • l ~ . ,. " ~ :- .: : ••• • .,;' 

) 

Petitioner ) 

) 

vs. ) No. CIV-89-1977-P 

) 

T. c. MARTIN, ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

• 

(DOCKETED· 

,1 U D G M E N T 

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

filed herein and the Court's Memorandum Opinion, 

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition be al)d 

;. 

the same is hereby denied. ~· 

DATED this IJfft day of January, 1990 • 

• 

(;:, 4~ LAYN~PS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

ENTERED !N JUDGZT·M:NT DCC/ ET 0:·J /-ff-qt; 

Appellate Case: 90-6035 Document: 010110040922 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 10