## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3392 T ORRANCE J ONES, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. J AM ES C RO SS, J R ., W ARDEN, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07- cv-00673

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 9, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 19, 2011

B efore E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, a nd F L A U M an d R IPPLE, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Torran ce J one s, a fede ral p risoner, a d mi t s t o p u s h i n g p r i s o n g u a r d R i c h a r d L o ft u s dur i ng an a l t e r c at ion atth e F ed er al C or re c tio n al In st itu tio n in M iam i, Flo rid a in 2 00 6. Jon es w as fou n d gu ilty of as sa u lt at hi s e nsui ng di sci pli naryhear i ng and w as sancti oned w ith the l o ss o f1 4 day s o fg o o d t i m e cr edi t. Af te r e xhausti n g his adm i ni str ati ve appeal s, J ones peti ti oned f or2 N o. 10

- 3392 a wri t o fhabea s co rpus i n fed er al courtpursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 2241 , cl ai m i ng that he w as denie d due p ro cess at the di sci pli naryhear i ng. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed th e p e t i t i o n . We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und J ones is c urr entl y s er vi ng a 30- yea r sente nce o n federa l drug tr affi cki ng c h ar ges . On A ugust 3 1, 20 06, Cor re cti o na l Offi ce r Ri ch ar d Lo ftu s es corted J o ne s to the Speci alH ousi ng Un i t ( “S H U ”) atthe M i am i Fe deral Cor r ec tional I ns ti tu ti o n. To r ea chthe S H U, Lo ftu s an d J ones needed t o c ro ss the o pen com pound

. Genera l l y, i nm ate s are nothandcuffed i n an o pen com pound so as no t to r en derthe m v ul ne r ab l e to a tt ac kb y o th eri nm ate s. Nev er th el es s, Lo ftu s o r der ed J o ne s to c uffup whi l e the t wo we r e i n the o pe n c o mpo un d. J o ne s r e fus e d, tel l i ng Lo ft us he wo ul d do s o i f the c o mpo und w as cl ose d. Loftus physi cal l y a tte m pte d to hand cuffJ ones tw i ce, and tw ice J ones pull ed away. Loftus then pushed J ones up against the S H U g ril l

. A ccor ding to J ones , Lo f t u s p r e s s e d h i s f o r e a r m o n J o n e s ’ s th r o a t, p i n ni ng hi m ag ai nst the S H U grill. Jones pushed Loftus away. E ven tu all y, L oftus cu ffed J one s. C ou ns elor Jose Ca brera w i tness ed the i nci dent, wh i ch al so w as capture d on s u r v e i l l a n c e v i d e o . F o l l o win gt he i n c i d e n t, J o n e s c o mpla i ned ofte nd er ness at hi s l ower thro at and nec k a re a and rec ei ved m edi caltr eat m ent. Latero n the 31st, Loftus fi l ed an i nci dent r epor t, ci ti ng J ones f oras saul ti ng ano therp er son i n vi ol ati on o f code 2 24, a n d r efusi ng to o bey an o rderi n vi ol ati on o f c od e 3 07
. See 2 8 C. F
. R. § 5 41
. 3. The Bur ea u o fPr i so nsN o. 10

- 3392 3 ( “BO P”) suspended i ts i nt er n aldi sci pli narypro cess whi l e th e F BIi nv es ti g at ed th e i nc i den t and the U ni ted S tat es A tt or n ey’ s Offi ce det er m i ned w hetherto cri m i nal l y pr ose cute J ones . The U

. S. A tt orney deci ded not to charg e J ones o n Se ptem ber13 , 20 06. J one s rece i ved a co py ofthe i nci dent r epor t that s am e day. A U ni t Di sci pli naryCom m i tte e ( “U DC ”) hear i ng r egar ding the inci dent w as i n itia ted o n Se ptem ber20 , 20 06. The UDC’s report indi ca te s th atJ o ne s r eque st ed no w itn es se s a t t h at tim e, bu t Jo n es m ain ta in s t h at h e t old Counsel orR oc h e ( w ho co nd ucted the U DC hear i ng) that h e h ad tw o w itn es se s. A c c or d in g t o Jon es , he kn ew on ly th e w itness es’ nickn am es, an d Roc he prom ise d t o try and i denti fy the m en. J ones hear d nothi ng further f ro m Roche. The UDC re fer r ed th e ca se t o De te nt i o n Hea r i ng Of fi c e r ( “ DH O ” ) Y i d a P o s a d a . J o n e s ’ s D HO h e a r i ng w as co n ve n ed an d ex te n d ed on th re e o c c as ion s in October20 06. The DH O’s note s fr om o ne o ftho se o cc as i o ns s ta te s “T y r o ne W al k er, wi tn es s no r epl y . ” S he does not re cal l the m eani ng o fthatnot e. The DH O hearing ev entual l y was hel d on Octobe r 23, 2006
. Davi d Tos ana ser ved as J ones ’ s sta ffrep re senta
ti ve . J o ne s ha d a b r i efmeet i ngwi thTo sa na

— hi s fi rs t and onl y m eet i ng with hi s r epres entat i ve

— pr i o r t o the hear i ng. A t that t i m e, J ones as ked t h at Tosana vi ew th e s u rv eilla n c e v id eo of th e in c id en t. Jon es als o t old T osan a tha t he w an ted an inm a t e , I rvin G reen, to testify atthe D H O hea r i ng . J o ne s co nt en ds th athe t o l d To sa na that Green c oul d provi de the n am e ofa seco nd witnes s.4 N o. 10

- 3392 That i nd i vi du alhas si n c e been i denti fi ed as Yves S t. H i l ai re . H owever, Tosa na does notr em em berJ ones m enti oni ng ano therwitnes s, a n d S t. H i l ai re di d not tes ti fy a t the DH O hearing. The DH O ’s r epor t ind i cate s th atGr ee n was the onl y wi tn es s J o ne s r eque st ed. The DH O’ s no te s f r o m Oc tobe r2 3 s ta te : “W i tn es s ( I r vin Gr ee n) th e ot her nam e i s incor re ct”; she has no r eco l l ecti on of w h at th a t n ot e m ea n t. Jon es m ain ta in s t h at h e w ou ld have re quested a thi rd witnes s a s wel l, an inm ate nam ed J or ge M asvi dal, had M asvi dal not been re l eas ed pri orto the DH O hearing, o n Se ptem ber20 , 20 06. J ones neve r men t i o ne d Ma s v i da l t o T o s a na o r the DHO. A fte r Jon e s a n d T os an a m et, th er e w as a se ve ra lh ou r re c es s d u rin g w h i c h T os an a v iew ed th e s u rv eill a n c e v i d e o a n d p r e p a r e d a me mo r a n d u m f o r th e D HO describi ng i ts conte n ts . J ones was not perm i tte d to w at c h th e v id eo . To sa n a’s m em or an d u m st at ed in re l evantpart : Co u n s e l o r J o s e C a b r e r a wa s s t a n d i n gi n fr o n to fthe g r i l l a r ea w hen Io bs er ve d Offi ce r Ri ch ar d Lo ftu s S. O.S
. es corting i nm ate Tor re nce [ si c] J ones ( 1926 7- 018) to Speci alH ousi ng Un i t. I nm ate J ones and Offi cer Loftus a pp ear ed to be str uggl i ng as theyapproa ched th e Gr i l l a r ea . I t appe ar ed as though Offi ce r Lo ftu s w as att em pti ng to applyr est ra i nts o n i nm ate J ones an d i nm at e J o ne s appe ar ed to b e r es i st i ngb y wal k i ng a wa y fr o m Offi c e r Lo ft us a nd n o tp l a c i ngh i s h a nd s b eh in d h im
. . . . O ffice r L oft u s a tt em p te d to p in i nm ate J ones ’ ches t to the SHU gr i l l and cuffi ng [ si c] hi m , but i nm ate J ones ag ai n resi ste d by pul l i ng awayN o. 10

- 3392 5 and t urni ng ar ound. Offi cerLoftus then pushed i nm at e J o ne s i n the c he sta nd pi nne d hi m a g ains t th e gr i l l ar ea by p lac ing hi s l eft f or ear m o n i nm ate J ones ’ neck (th ro at ar ea)
. A t that t i m e inm ate J ones pl aced both hands on Offi cerLoftus’ ches t a nd pushed O ffi c e r L o ft u s a wa y fr o m h i m. Tosana al so i nter vi ew ed Green. J ones ag re ed to have Green’s tes ti m ony prese nted thr ough a st ate m ent r ather than have Gree n tes ti fy in pers on. There f or e, T osa na pre p ared a m em oran d um f o r the D H O de scribing G reen ’s sta tem ents. Gree n did notte sti fy about the Au gust 31 i nci dent . R ather, he s tat ed that Loftus g ener al l y was agg re ssi ve towards and di sr espect ful ofi nm ate s. I n add i ti on t o Tosana’ s t w o m em or anda, the DH O had bef ore her a s tat em ent fro m Cabre ra, the eye w i tness
. Cabr e r a s t a t e d, i n r e l e v a ntp a r t, tha th e o b s e r v e d J o nes r efus e Lo ftu s’ s o r dert o c uff u p “be ca us e th e co m po und w as not cl ose d and that was the rul es. ” He furtherst ate d thatJ o ne s pul l ed awayfr o m Lo ftu s twi ce whenLo ftu s tr i ed to c uffhi m , a nd that Lo ftu s th en“ pl ac ed th e i nm ate ag ai nst the S peci alH ousi ng g ri l l

. The i nm ate spun aro und and pla ced both hands on o ffi cerLoftus. T h e in m at e p u sh [ed ] offic er L oft u s b ac k h ar d .” A lso be for e t h e D H O w as a d es c rip tio n of th e s u rv eill ance vi deo prepar ed by Bob W enzl er, a Speci alI nvest i gati ve Lie utenant. That m em o re ads, i n re l evantpart : Ric hard Loftus, Se ni or Offi cer Speci al i st, attem pted to pla c e h an d res tr ai nts o n i nm ate [ J ones ]
. The vi deo furtherr eve al ed, i nm ate J ones r esi ste d offi cerL oftus’ attem pt to pl ace re str ai nts o n hi m by spi nning aw ay6 N o. 10

- 3392 f ro m Loftus o n two occa si ons. The th ird t i m e o ffi cer Lo ftu s puti nm at e J o ne s ag ains t th e S pec i alHous i ng U ni t g ri l l door

. I nm ate J ones then assaul ted o ffi cer Lo ftu s by pu shi ng hi m away wh i ch cause [ d] o ffi cer Lo ftu s to a l m o stl o se hi s ba l an ce. Offi ce r Lo ftu s then r ega i ned his bal an c e[ , ] then re str ai ned i nm ate J ones and e sco rt ed hi m i nto the S peci alH ousi ng Un i t. A t the hear i ng, J ones ga ve hi s a ccount ofthe in c ident, sta ti ng tha t Loftus “ kept on t ry i ng to cuffm e up , ” and that Loftus “p u t his f or ear m ag ai nst m y windpipe with f o r c e a nd I pu s he d hi m a wa y . ” J o ne s fur the r s t a t ed that he pushed Loftus i n or der t o sto p Loftus’ s a ssa ult

. The DH O fo und J ones gui l ty ofbo th vi ol ati ons. H er r epo r t st at es th at i n r ea ch i ng th at co nc l us i o n sh e co ns i d e r e d C a b r e r a ’ s s t a t e me n t, We n z l e r ’ s me mo r a n d u m, a n d T o s a n a ’ s memo r a n d u m c o n c e r n i n gth e v i d e o . At an ev i denti ar y hea ring hel d bef or e M agi str ate Judge P h i l i p M. F r a z i e r o n D e c e mb e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , th e D HO tes ti fi ed that she a l so re vi ew ed the i n m ate i nj ury ass ess m en t r epo r t, whi chde sc r ibe d J o ne s’ s inj uri es fr o m the i nc i den t, a nd tha t he r f ai l ur e to l i sti t am ong the do cum en ta ry ev id en c e s h e c on s i d er ed w as an ov er sig h t. In he r w ritten op inion, th e D H O also con side red J one s’s p ositi on th at he w as p rotectin g him self agains t L oftus’s ass aul t, as wellas hi s a dm i ssi on that h e p ushed Loftus. She c on c lu d ed that“the f act sti l l r em ai ns thatafterr esi sti ng to be re str ai ned, [ J ones ] pushed a st affm em ber wi thf o r ce . Thi s co ns ti tu te s ana ctof aggr es si o n. ” The DH O s an ct i o ne d J o ne s wi th( amongo th erthi ng s) the l oss o f14 days ofgo od conduct ti m e. J ones exhau ste d i nt erna l a ppea l s o ftha t di sc i pl i na r y de ci si o n.N o. 10

- 3392 7 O n Sep te m b er 24 , 200 7, Jon es filed a h a b ea s p et itio n ch alle n gin g t h e co n st itu tio n alit y of h is p ris on d isc ip li na ry proc eed ing. Jones fil ed a m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent o n Octobe r 28, 20 09. A t th e Decem ber21 , 2009 ev i denti ar y hea ring be f or e the m agi str ate j ud ge, the DH O test i fi ed that she di d not s ee photog ra phs of J o ne s’ s i nj ur i es a t th e he ar i ng . J o ne s te st i fi ed th athe w as unabl e t o prese nt photo gr aphs ofhi s inju rie s t o th e DH O b ec au se he ne ve r r ec ei ve d them p riort o the he ar i ng . He fur th ers ta te d tha t he was not g i ve n the opportunity t o re view a n y o fthe docum entar y e vi dence, i ncl ud i ng m edi calr epor ts, pri orto hi s h ea ring. J ones al so s ta te d tha t he r eque st ed th atthe DHO re vi ew the m edi calr epor ts and consi der th e t re atm ent he r ecei ved afterthe i nci dent. On F ebr uary 23, 2010 , M agi str ate J ud ge Fr azi eriss ued a Report and Rec om m endati on concl ud i ng that Jones ha d no t be ende ni ed due p roce ss , a nd r ec o m m en di ng b ot h t he deni alo fJ ones ’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd the entr y o fj ud gm ent a gai ns t h im
. J ones fi l ed o bj ecti o ns t o the Re po r t an d Re co m m en dat i o n. C h ief D ist ric t Ju d ge H er n d on rev iew ed a n d u ltim a t e l y o v e r r ul e d tho s e o b j e c t i o ns , i s s uinga n o pi ni on adopti ng the m agi str ate ’ s Repor t and Reco m m endati on o n S e pt e mbe r 2 8 , 2 0 1 0
. J o ne s t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on W e review de novo th e d is t r ic t cou rt’s den ialof Jones’s § 2 24 1 p et itio n . D ani e l s v. Knight, 47 6 F.3 d 426, 43 3 ( 7th C ir. 2007).8 N o. 10

- 3392 Fed eral inm ates m us t be a ff o rd ed du e proc ess before an y of thei r goo d ti m e cr edi ts

— i n w hi ch theyhave a l iber ty i nter est

— c an be rev ok ed

. See Brooks - Bey v. Smit h, 819 F.2d 178, 180 (7th Cir. 1987). In the con tex t of a priso n dis ci pli naryhear i ng, due proc ess r equi re s that the pr i sone r re cei ve ( 1) w rit ten no ti ce o fthe cl ai m ed viol ation at least 24 h o u r s b efore hearing; ( 2) an op p ortu nity to call w itness es an d p resen t d o c um en tary evi dence ( w hen consi ste nt with i nsti tuti onalsa fety ) to ani m par ti alde ci si o n-mak er ; a nd ( 3) a wri tt ens ta te m en t bythe f ac t- fi nd er of th e ev i den ce r el i ed o n a nd the re as on s fo r t h e d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n . Se eSc r uggs v. Jor dan , 48 5 F .3d 93 4, 93 9 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Wolff v . M cD onnell, 41 8 U
. S. 53 9 (1974)
. A di sci pli narydeci si on m ust a l so be supp or ted by“som e evi dence” t o sat i sfy due pro cess . Sc r uggs , 48 5 F
. 3d at 941 ( quoti ng Su perin tend ent, M a ss. C orr. Inst
. , Walpole v. H il l, 472 U
. S. 445, 455 (1985 ))
. Jon es rais es n u m er ou s d u e p ro c es s c h alle n ge s t o h is di sc i pl i na r y he ar i ng . J o ne s fi r stc o nt en ds th at hi s due proce ss ri ghts w er e v i ol ate d because bo th hi s r ecei pt of the in c id ent r epor t a nd hi s di sci pli naryhear i ng o ccurr ed o ut s i de the t i me f r a mes s e tf o r th i n the a pp l i c a b l e BO P re gu la t i o n s . Jon es als o a rg u es th at h e w as w ro n gfu lly denie d the o pp or tuni ty to vi ew the surve i l l ance v i deo, re vie w a n d p re se n t d oc u m en ta ry ev id en c e, an d ca ll certain w itness es. Jon es furth er obj ects to the D H O ’s f ai l ure to w atch the sur vei l l ance v i deo. A ccord i ng to J o n e s , th e s e mu l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s d e n i e d h i m th e o ppo r tu
ni ty to prese nt hi s “ actua l i nnocence” defense

— nam el y, th athe l ac k ed th e spe ci fi c i nt en t to i nj ur e Lo ftu s, a nd ther ef or e ca nnot be f ound gui l ty ofas sau lt. A s di scusse dN o. 10

- 3392 9 bel ow, that ar gum ent c on tai ns a fund am entalfl aw that do o m s J o ne s’ s appe al

. F i na l l y, J o ne s co nt en ds th at he w as f ound gui l ty base d on i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence. W e be g i n wi thJ o ne s’ s ar g um en t tha t del ay s i n the disc i pli narypro cess , wh i ch al l ege dlyvi ol ated BOP r egul a t i o ns , c o ns t i t ut e d a de pr i v a t i o n o fdu e p r o c e s s . BO P re gul ati ons provi de t hat “ [ s] taffshal l gi ve each inm ate c ha r g e d wit h v i o l a t i nga Bu r e a u r ul e a wr i t t e n c o py ofthe charg e( s) ag ai nst the inm ate , o rdi n ar ily w i thi n 24 hou rs of th e tim e staff bec am e aw are o f th e inm ate’s in vo l vem ent in the i nci dent. ” 2 8 C. F. R. § 541. 15( a)
. H er e, Jones d id n ot re c e iv e a cop y of th e incide nt report unti l 13 days afterthe i nci dent. BOP r egul ati ons al so pr o vi de th ata n i nm at e’ s “ini ti alh earingb efo r e th e U DC , o rdi nari l y [ w i l l be] hel d w i thi n thr ee w or k days f ro m the ti m e staffbecam e aw ar e o fthe i nm ate ’ s invol vem en t in the inci dent. ” Id. § 5 4 1
. 1 5 ( b )
. T h a tt i me fr a me m ayb e ex te nde d “ f o r a g o o d c au se s ho wn bythe i nm ate ors ta ffa nd do cument ed i n the r ec o r d o fthe heari ng. ” Id. § 5 41
. 15 ( k )
. F ur th er m o r e, the r egul at i o ns al l ow p ri son sta ffto “s uspend di sci pli narypro ceedi ngs for a p er iod n otto ex c ee d tw o c al e n d a r w ee ks w h ile i nfo rm al r eso l uti on i s underta ken a nd acc om pli shed. ” 2 8 C.F
. R. § 541. 11, tabl e 2, n. H er e, the U DC hear i ng was h e l d a l mo s tth r e e we e k s a ft e r th e i n c i d e n t, an d th e D HO hear i ng o c c u rr ed near l y tw o m onths afterthe i nci dent. Jones argu es th at th e prison viol ated § 5 4 1 .1 5(a) and ( b), and that those vi ol ati ons depri ved hi m o fdue proc ess . J ones ’ s del ay ar gum ent i s no t ba sed o n hi s l iberty i nter esti n hi s g oo d ti m e cr edi ts. A s no ted abo ve, with10 N o. 10

- 3392

re spect to ti m i ng, al l thatdue process re quir es i s that pr i so ne r s be g i ve n wr i tt enno ti ce o fa l l eg ed vi olatio ns at l eas t 2 4 ho urs before a d i sci pli naryhear i ng. J ones had m or e than suffi ci ent no ti ce

— he r ec ei ve d the i nc i den t rep or t a w eek before his U D C hearing and over a m onth be f or e hi s DH O hea rin g. Rather, J ones ar gues that he has a sep ar ate l iber ty i nter esti n the ti m e fra m es se t f o r thi n § 541.15(a) and ( b). Befo re co nsi deri ng wh ethert h ose r egul ati ons gi ve ri se to a l iber ty i n te re st , we note that w hetherJ ones has estab li sh ed a viol ation of the r egu lations i s not clear. J ones ackno w l edges that the re aso n f or the i ni tial d elay w as the pe n d in g F BI i nvest i gat i on, wh i ch l i kel y pr ovi des “g oo d cause” f orat lea st a por ti on o fthe del ay i n h o l di ngthe UDC hea r i ng . M o r eo ve r, the r egul at i o ns

— w hi ch address the ti m i ng o fo nl y n ot ice to an i nm ate an d the UDC hea r i ng, no t th e DH O he ar i ng

— a pp ear to b e a d vis or y, st at in g w h en ev en t s “o rd in ar ily” sh ou ld o c c ur . Bu t e v e n a s s umi ngthe r e wa s a v i o l a t i o n o fBO P re gul ati ons i n thi s ca se, thatvi ol at ion di d not infr i nge J ones ’ s co nsti tuti onal l y- prot ecte d ri ghts. N o nc o m pl i an ce wi th§ 541. 15( a) and ( b) am ounts to a du e pr ocess vi ol ati on o nl y i ftho se re gul ati ons cre ate a l iberty in teres t. Pri son re gul ati ons gi ve ri se to a l iber ty i nter esto nl y i ftheyshi el d i nm ates fro m an “ aty pica l or sig n if ica nt hard sh ip .
. . i n relation to the ordina ry i nci dents ofpri son l i fe. ” Sa nd in v . Co nn er, 51 5 U.S
. 47 2, 48 4 ( 1995 ); see a l s o Cr owde rv. Tr ue, 74 F. 3d 812, 814 (7th Cir. 1996 ) ( applying Sand in , wh i ch ad dress ed sta te- cre ate d libe rt y in te re st s u n d e r t h e F ou rt ee n th A m en d m en t, inN o. 10

- 3392 11 th e c o n t e x to fa F i fth Ame n d me n tc l a i m i n v o l vi ng f ede r a l pr i s o n r e g ul a t i o ns )
. Th e de l a y s a t i s s ue di d not i m pose an “a typica l or si gni fi cant ha rdshi p” on J ones war r an tingdue pr o ce ss pr o te ct i o n. M o r eo ve r, J o ne s su ffer ed no pr ej udi ce a s a res ulto fthe del ays , so any concei vabl e due pro cess vi ola tion w as harm l ess . See Pigg i ev. Cot t on , 3 44 F. 3d 674, 67 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 03) (u sing harm l ess er ro r anal ysi s in re vi ew of prison d iscipli na ry board ’s a ll eged de nial ofprison er’s ri ght t o cal l witnes s a t di sci plinary hear i ng)
. J ones ar gues th at th e d ela ys p rej u d ice d h im b y pr ev en t i n g h im f ro m cal l i ng M asvi dal as a witness, as M asvi dal w as re l eas ed f ro m pri son on Se ptem ber 20, 2006 , th e d ay ofJ ones’s U DC hear i ng. J ones cl ai m s that M asvi dal woul d ha ve t es ti fi ed th atLo ftu s pi nne d J o ne s ag ains t th e S H U gr i l l b y pl ac i nghi s f o r ea r m o n Jone s’ s th r o at, a nd th at J ones had not ass aul ted Loftus. I n shor t, M asvi dal w oul d have co rr obo ra ted J ones ’ s v er si on o fev ents. Bu t the D H O h ad othe r evi dence co rr obe ra ti ng tha t ver si on o fev ents bef or e her

. S peci fi cal l y, she consi d er ed Jon es ’ s s tat em ent that he pu shed Loftus o nl y t o sto p hi m fr om cutt i ng o ffJ ones ’ s windpipe, as wellas To sa na ’s mem o r an dum , whi chc o nfi r m ed th atLo ftu s pinned J ones ag ai nst the gr i l l ar ea by pla ci ng hi s f or ear m on Jon es ’s n ec k. M as v i d a l’s t es tim on y m er ely w ou ld h ave be en cum ulative of that evid en ce. M oreover, the DHO cre di t e d J ones ’ s v er si on o fev ents

— th athe onl y pushed Loftus t o f re e hi s windpipe. N eve rth eles s, she c o nc l ud e d tha t, r e g a r dl e s s o fJ o ne s ’ s mo t i v e , h e was gu il ty of assa ult bec au se he ad m itted ly p us he d a staff12 N o. 10

- 3392

m em berwith for ce. I n ess ence, the D H O f ound that Jon es ’s ad m iss ion th at h e pu sh ed L oft u s p ro vid ed s u f fici en t ev i den ce t o s uppo r t a fi nd ing o fg ui l t o n the as sa ul t ch ar g e. Pl ainl y, M as vi dal ’ s te st i m o ny tha t Lo ftu s w as th e aggressor w ou ld n ot ha ve ch an ged the D H O ’s d eci s ion. B ecau se Jones’s inab il ity to p resen t M asvid al’s tes ti m ony did notprej ud i ce hi m , any concei vabl e e rr or w as harm l ess . T he sam e harm less error an alysis ap p lie s to J one s’s i nab i l i t y t o c a l l S t
. Hi l a i r e a s a wi tne s s . J ones c o nt e nd s that, l i ke M asvi dal, S t. H i l ai re w oul d have t est i fi ed as to his “actu al inn ocen ce.” In oth er w o r d s , St. H il aire w ou ld have v er i fi ed J ones ’ s v er si on o fev ents i n w hi ch he o nl y pushed Loftus t o f re e hi m sel f

. A s e xplai ned ab ov e, th at te st im on y w o u ld h av e d on e n ot h in g t o h elp J ones ’ s defense, and th eref or e a ny er ro r re l ate d to St
. H i l ai re al so w as harm l ess . W e turn now to J ones ’ s co nten ti on that he w as denie d d u e p ro c e s s b ec au se h e w as n otp er m itt ed to vie w ev iden ce tha t he c ha r ac te r i ze s as ex cul pat o r y, i nc l udi ng th e su r ve i l l an ce v i deo , hi s m edi ca l r epo r ts , pho to g r aph s of his inj uries, C ou ns elor C abrera’s rep ort, B ob W en zler’s re port, and St affRepres entat i ve Tosana’ s m em or an da. T he rule of Brady v . M aryl and, 3 73 U. S
. 83 ( 19 63 ) , r equi r i ng that m ate ri alexcul pator y evid en ce b e di scl ose d to a cr i m i nal defendant, appli es in t h e context ofpri son disc ip lin ar y p ro c ee d in gs . Piggi e , 3 44 F. 3d at 679. Conseq u en tly , pr oc ed u ra l d u e p ro c es s re q u ire d p ris on offic ials to disc l ose al l m ate ri alexcul pator y e vi dence to J ones . Sc r uggs , 485 F .3 d a t 939. Th ere is an exc ep tion, how ever,N o. 10

- 3392 13 to the di scl osur e o fm ate ri al, exculp ato ryev i dence that “w ou ld undu l y threa ten insti tuti onalco ncer ns. ” Id. (citations om itted ). I n thi s co ntext, the purpose o fthe Bradyr ule i s “ to i ns ur e th at th e di sc i pl i na r y bo ar d co ns i der s al l of th e ev id en c e re lev an t t o gu ilt or inn o c en c e a n d to en ab le the pr i sone r to pr ese nt hi s o r her bestdefense. ” P iggie, 344 F. 3d at 678. J ones ar gues that hi s l ack o f a cces s t o th e ev i den ce pr eve nt ed hi m fr o m pr es en tingwhathe cal l s hi s a ctuali nnocence defe nse. A s n oted abov e, accor ding to J ones , he i s not gui l ty of ass ault b ec ause h e lack ed th e sp ec ific in te n t req u ire d for as sa u lt

— th e i nten t t o c au se phy si ca l i nj ur y . Butl ac ko fs pec i fi c i nt en t is not a v a lid de fense to ass au lt in th e con tex t of a pri s o n di s c i pl i na r y a c t i o n. No r i s s e l f

- de fe ns e , whi ch m ay bett erdescr ibe J ones ’ s defense. In te n t t o d o h ar m is a n ele m en t o f bo th cr im in al a ss au lt an d c o m m o n law to rt iou s a ss au lt. See 6A C .J.S. A ss ault § 8 1 (2 01 1) (“ in te n t t o inj u re or to ca u s e a rea so n ab le apprehensi on o fbod il y inj ury i s a n ess enti alel em ent o f [c rim in al] as sa u lt” ); R ES TATE MENT (S EC OND ) OF T ORTS § 2 1 ( 1965 ) (l i abi l i ty f ortort i ous assa ultr equi re s intent “to ca us e a ha r m fulo r o ffen si ve c o nt ac t
. . . , o r a n i m m i ne nt apprehensi on o fsuch a co ntact” ). How eve r, J ones was n eit h er co n vic te d of cr im in al a ss au lt, n or h eld civ illy l i abl e f oras saul ti ng L oft us. Rather, he was f ound to ha ve vi ol ate d sect i on 2 24 of28 C
. F. R. § 541. 3, the BO P’s pro hibi ti on o n i nm ate s “ ass aul ti ng anyper son. ” Jo nes pr esent s no ar gum ent that s ecti on 2 24 shoul d be i nter prete d to i ncor pora te the c om m on l aw defi ni ti on o fas saul t.14 N o. 10

- 3392 A n d an an aly sis of th at se c tio n su gg es ts th a t t h e B O P d id no t i nt en d s ucha r ea di ngo fthe r egul at i o n. A t co m m on l aw , as saul t invol ved no physi calco ntact (on ly th e t h re at of su c h co n ta c t ) , w h er ea s b at te ry d id re q u ire su c h co n ta c t. See U nited Sta tes v. Va llery, 43 7 F
. 3d 62 6, 6 31 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. The BOP’ s r egul at i o n de fi ni ng prohibi ted act s byi nm ate s doe s no t incl u d e a separa te prohibi ti on o n batt er y. Code se cti on 2 24, w h i ch pro

hibi ts ass aul t, st ate s that “ a c h ar ge at thi s l eve l i s use d w hen l ess se ri ous ph ysi cali nj ury orco ntact has be en attem p ted or acc om p li sh ed by an inm ate.” Th e term “ass au lt, ” as it is used i n sec tion 224, app ears to incorpo r at e th e co nc ept s o fb o thcom m o n l aw b at te r y a nd ass aul t. Because the s ecti on 2 24 i s no t co extensi ve w i th com m on l aw as saul t, we see no reaso n to i m portan i ntent re quir em ent. M or eov er, bat te ry( w hi ch se cti on 22 4 in c or p or at es ) d oe s n otreq u ire int en t t o inj u r e , on ly in te n t t o m ak e t h e o ffen siv e c on ta c t. See R ES T AT EME NT (S EC OND ) OF T ORTS§ 1 3 cmt. c ( 19 65 ) ( l i ab i l i tyf o r t o rtio us batt er y r equi re s int en t “to cause a harm ful oro ffensi ve conta ct,” and “i t i s i m m ate ri althatthe acto r i s no t insp ired by an y pe rson al hostility to the oth er, or a des ire to i nj ure hi m ”)
. J ones adm i tte dlyi ntended to pu sh Loftus. There f or e, ev en i fwe w er e in c l i ned to i m portco m m on l aw pri nci ple s t o our i nter pretatio n of the BOP regula ti ons, J ones poss ess ed the re quis i te i ntent. J ones ’ s defense can al so be v i ew ed as o n e ofse l f

- defen se . Butwe ha ve he l d tha t i nm at es do not ha ve a co nst i tu ti o na l r i g htt o r ai se s el f

- defen se a s a defen se i n the c on te x t o f p ris on d isc ip lin ar y p ro c ee d in gs . Se eSc r uggs ,N o. 10

- 3392 15 48 5 F .3d at93 8-3 9; Ro wev . De Bru yn , 1 7 F
. 3d 1047, 10 49 ( 7t h Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )
. As s u c h, th e D HO wa s u n d e r n o c o n s t i tu
ti onalo bl i gat i on t o allow J ones ’ s cl ai m thathe was m er el y defending hi m sel fto se rv e a s a co m ple te defe nse to the c harg e o fas saul t. S he was perm i tte d, as she d i d, to fi nd J o ne s g ui l ty bas e d o n hi s a dmi s s i o n a l o ne , r e g a r dl es s o fmot i va ti o n. Because J one s’ s cl ai m ed defe nse i s no t a val i d one, none o fthe evi dence he sa ys h e s houl d have be en p ro vid ed ca n be ch ar ac te riz ed as ex c u lp at or y. O n ly e v i de nc e tha t u nd e r mi ne d o r c o nt r a di c t e d J o ne s ’ s a dm i ssi on that he p u sh ed Loftus would be excul pator y, and none o fthe evi dence ati ssue does so. J ones was en titl ed only to excu lpato ry eviden c e , and therefore ther e was no du e pr oce ss viol ati on. M or eov er, bec ause the e vi dence w as not ex c u lp ato ry, i t would nothave ch an g ed th e o u t c o me o fth e D HO h e a r i n g, a n d th us J ones suffer ed no prej ud i ce. J o ne s’ s cl ai m wi thr es pec t to the v i deo f ai l s f o r the add i ti onalreas on that pr i son offi ci al s a re notr equi re d to di sc l o se e vi den ce tha t would u ndul y thr ea te n i ns ti tu
ti onalsa fety
. W e hav e hel d that a n i nm ate i s no t e nti tl ed to disc l osur e of an excul pator y surve i l l ance vi d eo if allo w i ng the i nm ate to see the tape w oul d e ntai l a se c u rit y ris k. P iggie, 3 4 4 F
. 3 d a t6 7 9
. I n a d d i t i o n, we have r ec ogni zed thato ne “bo na fi de sec uri ty j usti fi cati on” f ornon- disc l osur e i s th at the vi deo m i ght a l l ow th e i nm at e to “ l ea r n the l o ca ti o n a nd cap ab i l i ti es o fthe p ris on su rv eill a n c e s ys te m , th u s a llow in g h im to av oid detect i on i n the future. ” Id. ; s e ea l s o Jo h n s o n v . F i nna n , 4 6716 N o. 10

- 3392 F. 3d 693, 694 (7th Cir
. 2006) (st ati ng in d i cta that “se curi ty concerns m ay m ake i t pr ud ent t o preve nt inm ate s from l earn in g t h e cap abili ties ofthe vid eo m onitors”). H er e, r espondent as ser ts that al l owing J ones to vi ew the v i deo would have pro vi ded h im w ith the l oca ti on ofthe surve i l l ance c am era that ca ptured the i nci dent, i ts fi el d ofvi ew , a n d t he i m age r eso l uti on, al l o fwh i ch w ou ld giv e r ise to sa fet y ris ks . Re sp on d en t’s va lid concern j usti fi es the DH O’s re fusalto al l ow Jo ne s to see th e video h im self. The f rui tl ess ness ofJ ones ’ s a ctuali nnocence defe nse al so doom s hi s obj ecti on t o the DH O’s re fusalto vi ew th e su r vei ll an ce v i deo

. The r e i s no di spu te tha t th e v i d e o s h o w s J o n e s p u s h i n gL o ft u s . E v e n i fi ta l s o s h o ws Loftus using f or c e on J ones fi rs t, thatdoes notchange the f act that “physi cali nj ury or co ntact [ w as] at tem pted oracc om pli shed by” J ones i n vi ol ati on o fse cti on 2 24. Fi nal l y, J ones as ser ts a s uffic i ency ofthe evi dence ar gu m en t. The DH O’s deci si on nee d onl y b e s up portby

“ s o me e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d.” We b b v. Ande rs on , 22 4 F
. 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. We have chara cter i zed the “som e e vi dence” s tandard as a “m ea ge r thre shol d.” Sc r uggs , 48 5 F
. 3d at 941. Once that th re sh old is cro ss ed , w e w ill n o t rev er se . Id

. H ere, Jones’s o w n ad m iss ion p ro vid es su fficie n t e vid en c e t o u p h old the DH O’s decisio n . B ecause the DH O “w as not re qui r e d t o a c c e pttha tp r o t e c t i ng[ hi mse l f ] wa s a de

fen se th at co u ld sh ield [Jon es ] from th e [a ss au lt] c h ar g e,” the e vi dence w as suffi ci ent t o susta i n the fi nd i ng o f gu ilt. Id.N o. 10

- 3392 17 I I I . Concl usio n Forthe foreg oi ng r eas ons, we A FFI RM THE denia l o f th e pet i ti o n.

4- 19- 11