2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-22-2013 

# J ua n Quin t a ni l l a v

. Ar chie Lon gle y
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-3227

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" J ua n Quin t a ni l l a v

. Ar chie L on gley " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1348. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/13481 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- 081 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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 For ma 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 a n altercation with another prisoner. He2 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 desc ribed as Hispanic). In support, he alleged that those involved in the disciplinary proceedings favored the other inmate because he is African

American (in order “to please the warden who is an African American”). Quintanilla also contended that the disci plinary 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 W e “ exercise plenary review over the District Court’ s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous st andard 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) (“ O ur 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 judg ment 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 he ld 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 e vidence 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 i d. The “some evidence” standard “ does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesse s, 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 rea ched by the disciplinary board.” Id. To the extent that Quin tanilla 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 explain ed 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 o n which the DHO relied satisfies the Hill standard4 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 “su bstantive 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 inmat e 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.