IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WALLACE MORRIS, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-1198

:

FPC LEWISBURG, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

July 7, 2015

Background

Wallace Morris, an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood Low

Security Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania (LSCI-Allenwood),

filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named

as Respondent is the Federal Prison Camp, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (FPCLewisburg).1

 Morris’ pending action does not challenge the legality of his

criminal conviction or the resulting sentence. Rather, Petitioner seeks relief with

respect to sanctions imposed against him as the result of an institutional

1 The only properly named Respondent in a federal habeas corpus action is

Petitioner’s custodial official, in this case the LSCI-Allenwood Warden. See 28

U.S.C. § 2242. 

1

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 7
disciplinary hearing.

Based upon a review of the sparsely worded Petition, Petitioner was issued 

an institutional misconduct charge for possession of a cell phone/ electronic

device. See Doc. 1, Exhibit A. He was found guilty of that charge following a

January 9, 2015 hearing before Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) Jordan at

FPC-Lewisburg and received sanctions including a 41 day disallowance of good

conduct time. See Doc. 1, ¶ 6. Thereafter, Morris indicates that he pursed an

unsuccessful administrative appeal. 

In his pending action, Petitioner raises two vague arguments. First, he

generally contends that DHO Jordan failed “to do a complete investigation.” Id. at

¶ 7. Second, Petitioner claims that no sanction should have been imposed because

the DHO’s finding of guilt was not based upon “substantial evidence.” Id. He

offers no other supporting facts or arguments. As relief, the Petitioner seeks the

restoration of his 41 days of forfeited good conduct time, expungement of the

finding of guilt, and a transfer. 

Discussion

Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule

4 (“Preliminary Consideration by the Judge”) of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977). 

2

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 7
See Patton v. Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156, 158-159 (M.D. Pa. 1979). The Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts are applicable

to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b) of the Section 2254 Rules.); Mutope v.

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Civil No. 3:CV-07-472, 2007 WL

846559, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2007)(Kosik, J.). 

Rule 4 states in relevant part that “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition

and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the

petitioner.” A petition may be dismissed without review of an answer “when the

petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where. . . the necessary facts

can be determined from the petition itself. . . .” Gorko v. Holt, 2005 WL 1138479

*1 (M.D. Pa. May 13, 2005)(McClure, J.)(quoting Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d

134,141 (6th Cir. 1970).

Habeas corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal prisoner to challenge

the ‘execution’ of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d

235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). A habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner

who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in prison. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748

(3d Cir. 1993). Federal habeas corpus review is available only “where the

3

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 7
deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of

detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). 

The United States Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

563-73 (1974), held that a prisoner deprived of good time credits as a sanction for

misconduct is entitled to certain due process protections in a prison disciplinary

proceeding. Wolff noted that "prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a

criminal prosecution and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such

proceedings does not apply." Id. at 556. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme

Court held that a prisoner facing a loss of good time credits is entitled to some

procedural protection. Id. at 563-71.

A subsequent United States Supreme Court decision, Sandin v. Conner, 515

U.S. 472, 480-84 (1995), reiterated that the due process safeguards set forth in

Wolff must be provided when the challenged disciplinary proceeding results in a

loss of good time credits. See also Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1399 (3d Cir.

1991) (a federal prisoner has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in good

time credit); Griffin v. Spratt, 969 F.2d 16, 19 (3d Cir. 1992). Since Petitioner

alleges that he was sanctioned to a loss of good time credits which adversely

affected the duration of his ongoing federal confinement, his claims are arguably

raised in a § 2241 petition. 

4

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 4 of 7
Wolff set forth five requirements of due process in a prison disciplinary

proceeding: (1) the right to appear before an impartial decision-making body; (2)

twenty-four hour advance written notice of the charges; (3) an opportunity to call

witnesses and present documentary evidence, provided the presentation of such

does not threaten institutional safety or correctional goals; (4) assistance from an

inmate representative, if the charged inmate is illiterate or if complex issues are

involved; (5) a written decision by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon

and the rationale behind their disciplinary action. Id. An additional procedural

requirement was set forth in Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst. at

Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 453-56 (1985). In that case, the United States

Supreme Court held that there must be some evidence which supports the

conclusion of the disciplinary tribunal. 

There is no claim by Petitioner that he requested, but was denied, the

opportunity to be provided with a staff representative. Morris does not assert that

the presiding DHO was biased. There is also no allegation that the DHO failed to

issue a detailed written decision explaining the reasoning underlying the finding of

guilt. Petitioner does not maintain that he was denied the opportunity to call

witnesses or, submit supporting documents as contemplated under Wolff. 

Petitioner also does not contend that he was not afforded with the amount of

5

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 5 of 7
advance written notice required under Wolff. Pursuant to the above discussion,

this Court is satisfied that Petitioner has not raised a cognizable claim that he was

denied any of his mandated Wolff due process protections.

With respect to Petitioner’s vague allegation that the DHO failed to

undertake a complete investigation, there is no recognized procedural due process

protection under Wolff or Hill which requires a prison disciplinary hearing officer

to conduct an investigation. Second, in regards to Morris’ bald claim that the

DHO made a decision which was not based upon substantial evidence, Hill only

requires that there must be some evidence which supports the conclusion of the

disciplinary tribunal. Furthermore, a federal court has no duty to independently

weigh the evidence, but only to see that there was some evidence or basis in fact to

support the finding of guilt. Hensley v. Wilson, 850 F.2d 269, 277 (6th Cir.

1988). The findings in a disciplinary hearing are not arbitrary or capricious if

there exists a basis in fact to support a disciplinary hearing officer's findings. 

Edwards v. White, 501 F. Supp. 8, 11 (M.D. Pa. 1979). 

As such, Petitioner’s wholly conclusory assertion that DHO Jordan’s

evidence was not supported by substantial evidence does not set forth a viable

federal habeas corpus claim.2

 Moreover, this petition simply does not raise an

2 It is noted that “[p]ossession of anything not authorized for retention or

receipt by the inmate and not issued to him through regular channels” is prohibited.

6

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 6 of 7
assertion that the record was so devoid of evidence that the findings by the DHO

were without support or otherwise arbitrary. The petition for writ of habeas

corpus will be denied. An appropriate Order will enter.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Patel v. Zenk, 447 Fed. Appx. 337, 339, n. 2. (3d Cir. 2011).

7

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 07/07/15 Page 7 of 7