Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06351/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
T. C. Martin
Appellee
Daniel Veon
Appellant

Document Text:

-- -- UNITED - S'l'-ATES CO0RT OF -APPEALS --

-FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DANIEL VEON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6351 

· FILED UflJted States Cou , rtof Ap ls Temh Circuit ipea 

APR 18 19-

.llOBERT L, HOECI(ER 

Clerk 

vs. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1259-W) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; 

T. C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Daniel Veon appeals the district court's denial of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Veon, a prisoner at the 

federal corrections institution in El Reno, Oklahoma, contends 

that an internal disciplinary proceeding which found that he had 

*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: 89-6351 Document: 01019971476 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 1 
~used narcot~cs and, consequently, resulted in his loss of 200 days 

of statutory "good time" violated his right to due process. We 

hold that the disciplinary proceeding met the requirements of due 

process and affirm the decision of the district court. 

Mr. Veen claims that Officer Huffines, the prison guard who 

supervised the inmates while they gave urine samples for drug 

testing, misidentified another inmate's urine sample as Mr. 

Veon's. This sample, numbered 9976, tested positive for morphine 

and two prescription drugs, Motrin and Endocin. Mr. Veen 

subsequently received an incident report, charging him with the 

use of narcotics. 

At the disciplinary hearing, Officer Huffines acknowledged 

that he had initially numbered both Mr. Veon's sample and an 

inmate Thielman's sample as 9975. Mr. Veen asserted that after 

renumbering the samples, Officer Huffines informed Mr. Thielman 

that his sample was number 9976. Mr. Veen also claimed that he 

had never taken either Motrin or Endocin but that Mr. Thielman had 

been prescribed both of those drugs. Mr. Thielman testified that 

he was taking Motrin and Endocin and that Officer Huffines had 

assigned him sample number 9976. 

Officer Huffines disputed these assertions. He stated that 

he had numbered Mr. Veon's sample as 9976 and that Mr. Veen 

claimed to be taking the two prescription drugs found in that 

urine sample. He also testified that Mr. Veon initialed the lab 

report next to sample 9976 while Mr. Thielman initialed it next to 

sample 9975. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6351 Document: 01019971476 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 2 
The -disc·ipl-inary -hearing officer ·(DHO) -concluded that Mr. 

Veon had used narcotics. He relied on the lab report for sample 

9976 in conjunction with Officer Huffines' testimony. He also 

relied upon the fact that Mr. Veon had previously received an 

incident report for drug use and had been extensively involved 

with narcotics in the community, including his current conviction 

for possession of a controlled substance with intent to 

distribute. Among other sanctions, he withdrew 200 days of Mr. 

Veon's statutory good time. Mr. Veon appealed unsuccessfully to 

the Regional Director. The district court then denied Mr. Veon's 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Disciplinary hearings which result in the revocation of a 

prisoner's statutory good time satisfy the requirements of due 

process as long as the prisoner receives (1) advanced written 

notice of the charge; (2) the opportunity, to the extent 

consistent with institutional safety, to call witnesses and 

present documentary evidence; and, (3) the factfinder's written 

statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the 

disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-66 

(1974). In addition, some evidence must support the decision in 

favor of revocation to prevent arbitrary deprivations of liberty. 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Where there is 

conflicting evidence, the DHO's decision must be based on the 

greater weight of the evidence. 28 C.F.R. § 541.17(f) (1989). 

Mr. Veon does not challenge that the disciplinary hearing did 

not meet the due process requirements in Wolff. Instead, he 

asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the DHO's 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6351 Document: 01019971476 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 3 
conclusion °· that he ha-d~-used narcotics. Our- review indicates, to 

the contrary, that the greater weight of the evidence supports the 

DHO's decision. As the factfinder, the DHO must determine the 

credibility of the witnesses at the disciplinary hearing. He 

clearly could have concluded that Officer Huffines' testimony 

that he had numbered Mr. Veon's sample 9976 and that Mr. Veon 

claimed to be taking Motrin and Endocin deserved more weight 

than the conflicting testimony of Mr. Veon and Mr. Thielman. The 

inmates' own action, moreover, confirms Officer Huffines' 

testimony. Mr. Veon initialed the lab report next to sample 9976, 

and Mr. Thielman initialed it next to sample 9975. This evidence 

in conjunction with Officer Huffines' testimony and Mr. Veon's 

previous record of involvement with narcotics was clearly 

sufficient for the DHO to conclude that the greater weight of the 

evidence indicated that Mr. Veon had used narcotics. 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the 

district court. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6351 Document: 01019971476 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 4