Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00229/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dexter Payne
Defendant
Brunson Roberts
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

BRUNSON ROBERTS PETITIONER

v. No. 4:22-cv-00229-JTK 

DEXTER PAYNE, Director,

Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER

Petitioner Brunson Roberts, a prisoner in the Varner Supermax Unit of the Arkansas 

Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 Roberts 

argues his right to due process has been violated for two reasons: (1) prison officials charged him 

with two “false” disciplinaries, and (2) they denied his requests for camera footage and witness 

statements necessary to defend himself at the disciplinary hearings. Doc. 1. Roberts contends the 

two disciplinaries were in retaliation for exercising his right to seek redress for grievances. In June 

2022, United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker reassigned this case to the undersigned 

pursuant to the parties’ consent to a United States Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. Doc. 12. 

First Major Disciplinary. On July 27, 2021, Administrative Review Officer Tabitha 

Crater filed against Roberts a major disciplinary for violating Rule 02-5 (unauthorized use of mail 

or telephone, including passing unauthorized messages, three-way communication(s), calling on 

another’s phone code, posing as another person, and telephone communications with unauthorized 

persons): 

On July 27, 2021, at approximately 11:44 a.m., I, Tabitha Crater (Admin. Review 

Officer) was monitoring phone calls. While monitoring phone calls, I began to 

monitor that of the listed inmate L. Belcher #148104. While monitoring that call, 

phone number 501-568-9208 (Jasmine Turner), pin #431834857, the inmate [states 

the name, “Nina Gann”]. I called 2 & 4 control booth to verify who was currently 

1 Roberts captioned his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. Because Roberts is in state, not federal, custody, 

this Court directed the Clerk to change the cause to reflect 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 13 at 3.

Case 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 7
2

on the phone in 2 barracks. The control booth operator stated that “Inmate B. 

Roberts is currently on the phone.” I searched phone records of inmate Brunson 

and Nina Gann, verif[ying that she] is in fact on inmate Brunson’s denied phone 

list. When verifying the phone information, the pin #431834857 belongs to inmate 

L. Belcher #148104. Inmate Roberts knows it is against ADC policy to use pin 

numbers that are not authorized. . . . 

Doc. 1 at 15. When Roberts was notified of the disciplinary, he requested a witness statement to 

provide a “positive ID.” Doc. 1 at 15. At the August 5, 2021, hearing, the hearing officer

considered Officer Crater’s statement, supporting statements from staff, and a witness statement. 

Doc. 1 at 23. Roberts also made a statement, denying that he was using the phone when he was 

identified by the control booth operator: “She do[es] not state that I made a three-way call or 

nothing. And she said that she call[ed] the control booth, but she did not state who she had call[ed]. 

All this is second-hand information. I was not on the phone at this time.” Doc. 1 at 22. The 

hearing officer found Roberts was guilty of committing the violation and imposed punishment: 

loss of commissary, phone, and visitation privileges for forty-five days; reduction in good-time 

classification from Class III to Class IV; and forfeiture of twelve good-time days. Doc. 1 at 22. 

The hearing administrator affirmed the finding. Doc. 1 at 17. On September 30, 2021, Payne, as 

ADC director upheld the guilty finding. Doc. 1 at 16. 

On September 10, 2021, Roberts filed a grievance, stating that, after he had filed an earlier

grievance against Officer Crater and Sergeant Regina Stewart for “taking a bribe & fraternizing,” 

Sergeant Stewart “made verbal threats to [him] for using the grievance procedure.” Doc. 1 at 19. 

He stated that Stewart’s threat was in retaliation for the grievance that he filed and that ADC 

officials failed to supervise and train her. After interviewing Sergeant Stewart, the warden 

determined that there was no evidence to support Roberts’s grievance and that it was without merit. 

Doc. 1 at 20. Roberts attempted to appeal the finding, stating that the warden failed to review 

video camera footage. Doc. 1 at 20. Roberts’s appeal was rejected as untimely. Doc. 1 at 18, 20. 

Case 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 7
3

Second Major Disciplinary. On November 2, 2021, Sergeant C. Conway filed against 

Roberts a major disciplinary for violating Rules 12-3 (failure to obey verbal and/or written orders 

of staff), 11-1 (insolence to a staff member) 5-3 (assault—any threat(s) to inflict injury upon 

another directly or indirectly, verbally or in writing), and 4-4 (battery—use of physical force upon 

staff):

On November 2, 2021, at approx. 8:35PM, I, Sgt. C. Conway was in 2 Barracks 

(Zone 1) conducting a security check and passing out mail. While on the third tier, 

inmate Roberts Brunson #127841, who is solely housed in cell 51, came on the tier 

yelling that his cell door needed to be open. I called for the door to be opened and 

continued passing out mail. At that time, inmate Roberts yelled at me again stating, 

“Why the *** she won’t open my door, you’re on the damn radio. I’m standing 

here barefoot and I need my damn door open.” I then told inmate Roberts that I 

was attempting to get the door opened. Inmate Roberts continued to yell, open my 

*** door.” I gave him a direct order to stop yelling at me while making space 

between me and Inmate Roberts. He then walked towards me in an aggressive 

manner, while stating, “who the *** you think you’re talking to.” I gave him a 

direct order to stop intruding my space. Inmate Roberts refused until he walked 

directly up on me, brushing his body up against mine making physical contact. I 

feared for my safety and immediately called for the available staff to assist. Inmate 

Roberts knows that his actions are a direct violation of ADC and unit policy. . . . 

Doc. 1 at 25. When Roberts was notified of the disciplinary, he requested a witness statement 

from “Sgt. Gardner,” who could attest to camera footage of the incident, and from “Dr. White,” a 

“mental health doctor,” who could attest to his (Roberts’s) conditions and diagnoses explaining 

his “reactions to certain situations in a prison setting.” Doc. 1 at 4–5 & 25. At the November 9, 

2021, disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer considered Sergeant Conway’s statement, 

supporting statements from staff, an infirmary report, and “photos.” Doc. 1 at 27. Roberts also 

made a statement: “The camera would show everything [Sergeant Conway] said was false. The 

reason I walked upon her [was] because she said if you want your meal [to] come and get it.” Doc. 

1 at 26. The hearing officer found Roberts was guilty of the violations and imposed punishment: 

loss of commissary, phone, and visitation privileges for sixty days; punitive isolation for twentyCase 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 7
4 

two days; and reduction in good-time classification from Class III to Class IV. Doc. 1 at 26. The 

major disciplinary appeal form, attached to Roberts’s petition does not include the dates that any 

appeals were considered or the decisions made by the hearing administrator or ADC director. Doc. 

1 at 28. Roberts, however, asserts that he appealed the hearing officer’s guilty finding at both 

stages and that the finding was not overturned. Doc. 1 at 5. Roberts states that, because of the 

reduction in class, he is not eligible for parole for an additional year. Doc. 1 at 5. 

On November 10, 2021, Roberts filed a grievance, stating that, after he had been restrained

on November 2, Sergeant Conway tried to attack him and was “relieved of her post”—before the 

disciplinary was entered into the computer system at 11:56 p.m. He says that he has filed previous 

grievances against “Cpt. Lytsey” and “Sgt. Beck,” and that the two officers retaliated by falsifying 

the disciplinary in Sergeant Conway’s name. ADC deputy director William Straughn found that 

the grievance was without merit and that an Internal Affairs investigation was unnecessary. 

Straughn found Roberts “made physical contact with staff in an aggressive behavior,” and that the 

staff member “responded and acted appropriately.” Doc. 1 at 13. 

Discussion. “Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for 

state prisoners attacking the validity of the length of their confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 

U.S. 475, 490 (1973). “Where a petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus and fails to attack the 

validity of his sentence or the length of his state custody, the district court lacks the power or 

subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ.” Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996). 

See also Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469–71 (8th Cir. 2014). The imposed sanctions—loss 

of commissary, phone, and visitation privileges; and reduction in classification—affect the 

conditions of Roberts’s confinement, not the length of his detention. See, e.g., Croston v. Payne, 

No. 4:22-cv-00616-LPR-JVV, ECF No. 7, 2022 WL 18106996 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 23, 2022), report 

Case 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 7
5 

and recommendation adopted by No. 4:22-cv-00616-LPR, ECF No. 9, 2023 WL 23806 (Jan. 3, 

2023). To the extent Roberts contends his disciplinaries and reductions in class affected his 

transfer eligibility, or parole release date, parole is discretionary and does not result in a reduction 

of a prisoner’s sentence. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-701(b)(1)-(2). Arkansas parole statutes, 

therefore, create only a possibility of parole and confer no right to parole giving rise to a liberty 

interest. Hamilton v. Brownlee, 237 Fed. Appx. 114, 115 (8th Cir. 2007). A habeas remedy 

therefore is not available. 

Roberts’s remaining sanction is a loss of good time credits in the first disciplinary 

proceeding. Federal courts in the Eastern District of Arkansas have determined that, under the 

Arkansas statutory scheme, the loss of good time credits does not affect the duration of 

confinement or implicate a constitutionally protected liberty interest.2 In McKinnon v. Norris, the 

Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the argument that the loss of good time as a disciplinary sanction 

is a loss of a liberty interest without due process. 366 Ark. 404, 408, 231 S.W.3d 725, 729 (2006). 

The Supreme Court noted that the governing statutes specifically state that “‘meritorious good 

time will not be applied to reduce the length of a sentence,’” and that the credits instead should be 

applied to the prisoner’s transfer eligibility date. Id. (quoting Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201(d) and 

2 See Holliday v. Payne, No. 4:24-cv-00395-BRW-ERE, ECF No. 10, 2024 WL 3352820 (E.D. 

Ark. June 21, 2024), report and recommendation adopted by, No. 4:24-cv-00395-BRW, ECF. No. 

12, 2024 WL 3345528 (E.D. Ark. July 8, 2024); Brown v. Payne, No. 4:23-cv-00287-BRW-PSH, 

ECF No. 11, 2023 WL 6626280 (E.D. Ark. October 11, 2023), report and recommendation 

adopted by, No. 4:23-cv-00287-BRW, ECF No. 12, 2023 WL 7159296 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 31, 2023); 

Martin v. Payne, No. 4:22-cv-01271-KGB-PSH, ECF No. 44, 2023 WL 10553148 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 

4, 2023), report and recommendation adopted by, No. 4:22-cv-01271-KGB, ECF No. 65, 2024 

WL 1311411 (E.D. Ark., Mar. 27, 2024); Crockett v. Kelley, No. 5:18-CV-00210-JM-JTR, ECF 

No. 16, 2019 WL 1590947 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 14, 2019), report and recommendation adopted by, 

No. 5:18-CV-00210-JM, ECF No. 22, 2019 WL 1590588 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 12, 2019); Roberts v.

Hobbs, No. 5:14-cv-00044-JHL-BD, ECF Nos. 5, 11, 2014 WL 1345341 (E.D. Ark. April 4, 

2014), certificate of appealability denied, No. 14-1930 (8th Cir. Aug. 12, 2014). 

Case 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 7
6 

citing Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201(e)(1)). If Roberts’s good time credits and transfer eligibility 

date are restored, he would not have a legitimate expectation in parole release to give rise to a 

liberty interest. Hamilton, 237 Fed. Appx. at 115. 

Even if any disciplinary sanction implicated a constitutionally protected right, the claims 

are procedurally defaulted. Before seeking habeas review, Roberts must have exhausted available 

state remedies by fairly presenting each of his constitutional claims in state court. Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). 

Procedural default occurs when a petitioner did not present a claim in state court and a state court 

remedy is no longer available. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848. Under Arkansas law, “an inmate who 

asserts a credible constitutional claim is entitled to review [of the ADC‘s final decision] under the 

Administrative Procedures Act.” Ruiz v. Felts 2017 Ark. 85, *3, 512 S.W.3d, 626, 628–69 (per 

curiam) (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 to § 25-15-219). The prisoner must file a petition 

seeking judicial review within thirty days of the agency’s final decision. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-

212(b)(1)(B). Roberts’s state court remedy was a petition for judicial review under the APA. He 

failed to fairly present his constitutional claims in state court, and there is no longer an available 

state court remedy. 

If a claim is procedurally defaulted, a federal court can consider it only if the petitioner 

establishes either cause for the default and actual prejudice, or that the default will result in a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. To establish cause, Roberts must 

“show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with 

the State’s procedural rule.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). Roberts says the prison 

mail room returned to sender the papers that he needed to file a petition in state court. The ADC 

Return Mail Notice, however, is dated July 26, 2021, one day before Roberts received his first 

Case 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 7
7 

disciplinary. Doc. 1 at 14. To the extent Roberts has alleged a challenge to the duration of his 

confinement, the claims are procedurally defaulted and therefore denied.

* * * 

For all the reasons stated, Roberts’s habeas petition fails and will be dismissed. 

SO ORDERED.

 ____________________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12/4/2024 

DATE

Case 4:22-cv-00229-JTK Document 17 Filed 12/04/24 Page 7 of 7