2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-22-2013

Juan Quintanilla v. Archie Longley

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3227

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Juan Quintanilla v. Archie Longley" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1348.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1348
1

ALD-081 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3227

___________

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA,

Appellant

v.

ARCHIE LONGLEY, Warden

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00279)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellant’s Motion to Reopen and Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma 

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

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 10, 2013

Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE and WEIS, Circuit

(Opinion filed: January 22, 2013)

Judges

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM .

Juan Antonio Quintanilla, a federal prisoner, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 to challenge disciplinary sanctions he received (including the loss of 27 days of 

good conduct time (“GCT”) credits) after an altercation with another prisoner. He 
2

claimed that he was deprived of his right to due process in the disciplinary proceedings. 

More specifically, he contended that there was a conspiracy against him based on his race 

and national origin (which he described as Hispanic). In support, he alleged that those 

involved in the disciplinary proceedings favored the other inmate because he is AfricanAmerican (in order “to please the warden who is an African American”). Quintanilla 

also contended that the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) should have watched the 

surveillance video of the incident. 

The District Court denied Quintanilla’s petition. Quintanilla filed a timely notice 

of appeal, but his appeal was subsequently closed for failure to pay the fees or submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). He presents a timely motion to reopen 

and an ifp motion, both of which we grant. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. Misc. 107.2(a); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a); Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1291.

, 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989).

1

 We “exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its 

findings of fact.” See O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005); see also

United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531, 1542 (3d Cir. 1996) (“Our review of the district 

court’s order denying . . . relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is plenary.”). Upon review, we 

will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment because no substantial issue is 

presented on appeal. See

 1

 The parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
3

Due process protections attach in prison disciplinary proceedings in which the loss 

of GCT is at stake. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974). In Wolff, the 

Supreme Court held that an inmate must receive “(1) advance written notice of the 

disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and 

correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; 

and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for 

the disciplinary action.” Superintendent v. Hill

In 

, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

Hill, the Supreme Court further explained that to meet the minimum 

requirements of due process, the findings of the prison disciplinary board must also be 

supported by some evidence in the record. See id. The “some evidence” standard “does 

not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of 

witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.” Id. at 455. “[T]he relevant question is whether 

there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the 

disciplinary board.” Id.

To the extent that Quintanilla presented a procedural due process claim, we agree 

with the District Court that the procedural protections required by 

at 455-56.

Wolff were provided. 

Also, as the District Court explained with reference to the evidence submitted by the 

defendant, there was some evidence to support the conclusion reached by the DHO 

(namely, the statement of the reporting officer who witnessed the incident). Although 

Quintanilla contended that the DHO would not watch the surveillance video, the 

reporting officer’s statement on which the DHO relied satisfies the Hill standard 
4

regardless of the potential existence of other evidence. 

The District Court also properly rejected Quintanilla’s claim of racial animus, 

whether it is viewed as a claim of a violation of Quintanilla’s substantive due process 

rights, as he asserted, or as a claim of a violation of the right to equal protection grounded 

in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Phillips v. Perry

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

, 106 F.3d 

1420, 1427 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “substantive due process and equal protection 

doctrine are intertwined for purposes of federal action”) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). The claim is belied by record evidence. Despite Quintanilla’s assertion 

to the contrary, the other inmate involved in the fight was given harsher sanctions than 

Quintanilla was. 

2

______________________ 

 2

 As we noted above, Quintanilla’s motion to reopen and ifp motion are granted.