Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03089/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary L. Henman
Appellee
Richard H. Rhodes
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United St.ates Court of Appeals 

'fenth Circuit 

OCT 2 31991 

RICHARD H. RHODES, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY L. HENMAN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-3089 

) (D.C. No. 90-3396-R) 

) (D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner Richard H. Rhodes, proceeding prose, appeals an 

order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has 

also filed a motion for in forma pauperis status on appeal. 

In the district court, petitioner alleged constitutional 

error in the conduct of prison disciplinary proceedings held at 

the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, regarding an 

* 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. 

** After examining the petitioner's brief and the 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. 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 1 
incident at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, 

Pennsylvania. Petitioner alleged that (1) the disciplinary action 

was untimely, (2) the charges were retaliatory, (3) he was 

compelled to give statements against himself in violation of the 

fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, (4) there was 

insufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt, and (5) 

venue was improper. On appeal, petitioner further alleges that 

the district court erred in (1) not permitting him discovery and 

(2) denying his motion to strike portions of respondent Gary L. 

Henman's answer and return. 

Upon review of the district court's order, petitioner's 

opening brief on appeal and the record on appeal, we find no 

reversible error and AFFIRM the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas for substantially the 

reasons stated by the district court in its order, a copy of which 

is attached. Petitioner's petition for in forma pauperis status 

on appeal is GRANTED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 2 
\ 0 72A 

Rev. 8/82) 

IN 

RICHARD H. RHODES, 

v. 

GARY L. HENMAN, 

. , .. ,; 

I i c ·, ,·. : ·.: :."J ~.; f~T I ·, . .... ~ .-- .. , ._., .; .. ) 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cobiA-LJ .~ ;_~ tJ! 'SI 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS e·~ .-~ 

i \ I , . • : . i. r., I I \~)• 

Petitioner, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 90-3396-R 

r;q-;-c:: 1 RED ON THE DOCKfT .... , • 1- ~ • 47 ·11 

DATE ,£ - ~_o -: .. • •-

______________________ ) 

0 R D E R 

This matter is before the court on a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2241. Petitioner, an 

inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 

("Leavenworth") alleges constitutional error occurred in the conduct 

of administrative disciplinary proceedings against him at that 

institution. Petitioner specifically asserts the disciplinary 

action in question was untimely, the charges were retaliatory, he 

was improperly compelled to give statements against himself, there 

was insufficient evidence to support the finding against him, and 

that venue for the proceeding was improper at Leavenworth. 

Petitioner seeks declaratory relief and expungement of the 

incident from his institutional record. The government has filed 

an answer and return in this matter, and petitioner has filed a 

traverse. Having reviewed the materials filed in this action, ~he 

court makes the following findings and order. 

' 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 3 
. . ·~ 

,0 72A 

~ev. 8/82) 

Factual Background 

Petitioner was incarcerated at the United States 

Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, ("Lewisburg") from August 

1987 to September 1989. During this period, petitioner was housed 

in that facility's Special Housing Unit ("SHU") with Melvin Ray, 

another inmate who had been linked to the murder of a third inmate. 

Petitioner was transferred to Leavenworth in September 

1989 but was returned to Lewisburg to appear at Ray's criminal trial 

on murder charges. Petitioner was housed in a single cell in the 

Lewisburg SHU throughout this stay. On December 20, 1989, a 

correction officer discovered several maps in petitioner's cell of 

the local federal courthouse and surrounding area. These i terns were 

confiscated and provided to the United States Marshals Service as 

possible evidence of a planned escape. The maps were returned to 

the Bureau of Prisons at the conclusion of Ray's trial, and 

Lewisburg officials then prepared an investigative packet and 

incident report charging petitioner with planning an escape or 

aiding another to plan an escape. Petitioner had been returned to 

Leavenworth after his testimony in the trial, and the incident 

report and other materials were therefore forwarded to Leavenworth 

upon their completion. 

Petitioner received the incident report at Leavenworth on 

March 1, 1990, and a hearing was conducted before the Discipline 

Hearing Officer ("DHO") on March 14, 1990. Both petitioner and his 

staff representative gave statements at that hearing, and petitioner 

asserted his belief that the disciplinary charges were retaliatory. 

Petitioner also stated the maps were intended for the use of his 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 4 
.. . ' 

,0 72A ~ev. 8/82) 

family and not for an escape. After the hearing, petitioner was 

found guilty and ordered to forfeit all available good time and to 

serve 60 days in disciplinary segregation. Petitioner 

unsuccessfully pursued administrative appeals from this action and 

then commenced the instant action in habeas corpus. 

Discussion 

Before examining petitioner's claims, the court finds it 

appropriate to review the due process requirements applicable to 

prison disciplinary proceedings and the standard of review for such 

proceedings. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the United 

States Supreme Court held that, at a minimum, a prisoner is entitled 

(1) to receive advance notice of charges no less than 24 hours 

before the disciplinary hearing, (2) to present evidence and 

witnesses in his defense, and (3) to receive a written statement of 

the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary 

action. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-69. 

The finding of a prison disciplinary body must be 

supported by some evidence in the record. Superintendent, 

Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 

445, 454-55 (1985). In enunciating this standard, the Court noted 

that in reviewing the findings of a prison disciplinary board, a 

court need not examine the complete record, assess the credibility 

of the witnesses, nor weigh the evidence. Instead, "the relevant 

question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could 

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Id. at 

455-56. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 5 
-~ ' . 

.O 72A ~ev. 8/82) 

The court has reviewed petitioner's claims in light of 

these standards, and concludes relief must be denied. 

1. Timeliness of charges 

While an inmate suspected of violating a Bureau of Prisons 

regulation normally receives an incident report within 24 hours of 

the time the violation is discovered, federal regulations provide 

an extension where the inmate is subject to prosecution by another 

agency. Under such circumstances, no disciplinary action may be 

taken until the matter is released by that agency. 28 C.F.R. § 

541.14(b) (1). Here, the evidence of an escape plan was provided to 

the United States Marshals Service and later returned to corrections 

officials. Petitioner was therefore not entitled to receive an 

incident report within 24 hours of the discovery of the maps, and 

his argument fails. 

2. Retaliatory Disciplinary Charges 

The court also rejects petitioner's claim that the 

issuance of the incident report was retaliatory or an abuse of 

discretion. Correction officers have the responsibility to maintain 

internal security and order in penal institutions and are generally 

accorded broad discretion in the exercise of their duties. See, 

~, Smith v. Rose, 760 F.2d 102 (6th Cir. 1985); Rogers v. Scurr, 

676 F.2d 1211 (8th 1982); Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260 (7th 

Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1085 (1985). This responsibility 

permits officials to search inmates' living areas and other areas 

of facilities for contraband. United States v. Ready, 574 F.2d 1009 

(10th Cir. 1978). Where such items are discovered, officials may 

take appropriate action, such as confiscation of the materials and 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 6 
,0 72A 

'lev. 8/82) 

referral for possible disciplinary action. 28 C.F.R. § 553.13. 

Petitioner does not challenge the actions of Lewisburg 

officials in seizing the maps but asserts broadly that the incident 

report was prepared in retaliation for his refusal to testify 

against Ray at his trial on murder charges. Clearly, prison 

disciplinary action may not be retaliatory. 28 C.F.R. 

§ 541.l0(b) (4) ~- Se.e also, Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 

1986) (discussing proscription of retaliation). In this matter, 

however, the court finds no reliable evidence of improper 

retaliatory action. The maps found in petitioner's cell reasonably 

support the belief that petitioner was planning an escape, and the 

referral of such materials to officials for disciplinary proceedings 

is an appropriate exercise of authority. Under these circumstances, 

petitioner's bald claim that the action was retaliatory is 

unpersuasive. 

Petitioner also alleges the officer who prepared the 

materials for forwarding to Leavenworth should not have handled any 

portion of the investigation because he serves as DHO at Lewisburg 

and not as investigative staff. This claim of abuse of discretion 

requires little discussion. Federal regulation requires merely that 

the reporting officer may not serve as the hearing officer in 

subsequent disciplinary action on the incident. 28 C.F.R. § 

541.16(b). The Lewisburg officer obviously did not serve as the 

hearing officer at Leavenworth. 

Petitioner's claim that the Lewisburg DHO should not have 

written the incident report since he did not personally discover the 

maps likewise fails. Any corrections officer who has a reasonable 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 7 
.. . . 

,0 72A ~ev. 8/82) 

belief a violation of institution regulations has occurred may write 

an incident report. 28 C.F.R. § 541.14. 

3. Fifth Amendment Privilege 

Petitioner asserts statements made during the internal 

investigation where no Miranda warnings were given should not have 

been used during the institutional disciplinary proceedings. This 

contention, however, lacks merit. The requirements of Miranda, 

which deals with what warnings must be given to one in custody, have 

not been extended to prison disciplinary proceedings. Such 

proceedings are civil, not criminal, and accordingly do not 

implicate the privilege against self-incrimination. See Tinch v. 

Henderson, 430 F.Supp. 964, 968-69. 

4. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

Petitioner's assertion that there was insufficient 

evidence to support the decision of the DHO also fails. The 

materials before the hearing officer included the maps seized from 

petitioner's cell. These maps show the location of the United 

States Marshal's Office, where the Marshals would be seated during 

court proceedings, and the elevators used for transporting inmate 

witnesses. This information reasonably supports the DHO's 

conclusion the maps were used in planning an escape, and accordingly 

this court may not disturb the DHO's finding. Hill, supra. 

5. Venue for Disciplinary Proceedings 

The court also rejects petitioner's argument that prison 

disciplinary hearings must be conducted at the facility where the 

underlying incident occurs. First, the federal regulations 

governing prison disciplinary proceedings do not require that 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 8 
.. ,, . 

.O 72A 

1ev. 8/82) 

proceedings be conducted where the alleged infraction occurred. 

Further, there is no evidence that petitioner was in any way 

prejudiced by having the disciplinary hearing at Leavenworth. 

Petitioner did not request any witness from Lewisburg, the 

documentary evidence considered by the OHO could be adequately 

presented at Leavenworth, and the circumstances of the incident were 

uncomplicated. Under these circumstances, the court finds no error 

in holding the proceedings outside the institution where the 

incident occurred. 

Finally, petitioner's argument that conducting the 

administrative disciplinary hearing at Leavenworth violated his 

rights under Article III of the Constitution and the sixth Amendment 

is not well-taken; these provisions pertain to the rights of a 

criminal defendant. 

In short, the court can find no support for petitioner's 

claim that the disciplinary proceedings conducted at Leavenworth 

were constitutionally inadequate. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is dismissed and all relief denied. 

The clerk of the court is directed to transmit copies of 

this order to petitioner and to the United States Attorney for the 

District of Kansas. 

it 

DATED: This Q ~- day of February, 1991 at Topeka, 

Kansas. 

~~Rf) 9'¥'~ 

United States District Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-3089 Document: 010110092135 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 9