Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02871/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02871-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Charles Kenney
Appellant
Warden Lewisburg USP
Appellee

Document Text:

1

ALD-146 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2871

___________

JOHN CHARLES KENNEY,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN LEWISBURG USP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-14-cv-01030)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

February 19, 2016

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 23, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Appellant John Charles Kenney, an inmate at U.S.P. Lewisburg, appeals from the 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

Case: 15-2871 Document: 003112214168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
2

District Court’s denial of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because this 

appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See Third 

Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. 

Kenney challenges his August 7, 2013 disciplinary proceedings for assaulting 

another inmate, in which he was sentenced to 27 days’ loss of good conduct time, loss of 

phone privileges, loss of commissary privileges, and loss of visiting privileges for 120 

days. Kenney denies committing the assault. He also claims that his disciplinary 

proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process for three reasons: (1) the 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) who presided over his hearing refused to call two 

witnesses on Kenney’s behalf, (2) the staff representative who was appointed to assist 

Kenney refused to conduct pre-hearing preparation and refused to contact people on his 

behalf, and (3) insufficiency of the evidence. The District Court agreed that Kenney’s 

challenge was to the execution of his sentence, and therefore appropriate under § 2241. It 

denied his petition, however, finding that Kenney was afforded his minimum procedural 

due process rights as set forth by the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974). Additionally, finding that the DHO’s findings were 

supported by “some evidence,” the District Court held that the DHO’s decision was 

entitled to deference. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456-57 (1985).

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We exercise 

plenary review over the district court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous 

 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2871 Document: 003112214168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
3

standard to its factual findings.” Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 

(3d Cir. 2002). 

The District Court correctly concluded that Kenney was not denied his 

constitutional right to due process. As the Supreme Court has stated, inmates are 

afforded the right to: (1) appear before an impartial decision making body; (2) twentyfour hour advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (3) an opportunity to call 

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when it is consistent with 

institutional safety and correctional goals; (4) assistance from an inmate representative if 

the charged inmate is illiterate or complex issues are involved; and (5) a written decision 

of the fact finder of the evidence relied upon and the rationale behind the disciplinary 

action. 

The record reflects that Kenney was afforded these rights. Kenney was given 

written notice of his charges on July 11, 2013, and his hearing was not until August 7, 

2013, well over twenty-four hours later. He was afforded a staff representative for his 

hearing,1and does not dispute the impartiality of the DHO who presided over his hearing. 

Finally, he was given a written decision with the reasons for his disciplinary action –

multiple eye-witness accounts of prison staff indicated that Kenney kicked CoutinhoSilva several times in the abdomen and legs on the morning of July 11, 2013. He refused 

 

1 Kenney complains that the staff representative, Mr. Hollenbach, did not conduct prehearing preparation. This is unsupported by the record.

Case: 15-2871 Document: 003112214168 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
4

to stop despite being ordered to do so several times, and stopped only when chemical 

agents were deployed on him. D.C. dkt #1-1 at 3. 

Kenney complains that two witnesses were not called on his behalf during his 

disciplinary hearing: inmate Coutinho-Silva and Lieutenant Roger Miller. He claims that 

Coutinho-Silva, whom he allegedly assaulted, would have testified that Kennedy did not 

assault him. He testified that Lieutenant Roger Miller would have “clear[ed] all this up.” 

D.C. dkt #1-1 at 3. Coutinho-Silva was not called as a witness because he was housed in 

a Special Management Unit separate from Kenney at the time of the hearing, and calling 

him as a witness would have presented security concerns. Id. His account, which stated 

that Kenney did not assault him, was read during the hearing. Id. Miller was not called 

as a witness because he documented his eyewitness account of the incident in a 

memorandum, which was read during the hearing. Id. The DHO stated that, in any case, 

Miller would have been an adverse witness. Id. The DHO’s refusal to call these 

witnesses is in line with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Wolff. As the Court stated, 

“Although we do not prescribe it, it would be useful for the [DHO] to state its reason for 

refusing to call a witness, whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards 

presented in individual cases.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. Inmates do not have an 

“unqualified right to call witnesses.” Id. We conclude that the DHO’s refusal to call 

Coutinho-Silva and Miller did not deprive Kenney of his right to due process.

 The District Court also correctly concluded that the DHO’s decision to sanction 

Kenney was supported by “some evidence,” as required under Superintendent v. Hill. 

Case: 15-2871 Document: 003112214168 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
5

“[W]here good-time credits constitute a protected liberty interest, a decision to revoke 

such credits must be supported by some evidence.” 472 U.S. at 447. However, 

“[a]scertaining whether the “some evidence” standard is satisfied does not require 

examination of the entire record, independent assessment of witnesses’ credibility, or 

weighing of the evidence, but, instead, the relevant question is whether there is any 

evidence in the record to support the disciplinary board’s conclusion.” 472 U.S. at 455-

56. Here, the DHO explained that the weight of the evidence indicated that Kenney 

assaulted Coutinho-Silva because multiple prison staff who were eye-witnesses of the 

incident stated that Kennedy committed the assault. The Court therefore correctly 

concluded that this meets the “some evidence” standard. 

As this appeal presents no substantial question, we grant the Appellees’ motion for 

summary affirmance and will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Case: 15-2871 Document: 003112214168 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/23/2016