NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-3294

___________

KAREEM HASSAN MILLHOUSE,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN LEWISBURG USP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-14-cv-01971)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 14, 2016

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., GREENBERG and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 14, 2017)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Kareem Hassan Millhouse, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the 

District Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

U.S.C. § 2241. His petition sought relief from sanctions imposed in prison disciplinary 

proceedings. We will affirm.

According to the incident report, on December 14, 2013, pursuant to a contraband 

search of the cell assigned to Millhouse, Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) staff found an 

orange bag filled with homemade intoxicants. An Alcosensor test was conducted and the 

liquid tested positive for being an intoxicant. An incident report was filed and provided 

to Millhouse. When the investigating officer informed Millhouse of the incident report 

and his rights, Millhouse stated, “[t]he report is correct, I can’t dispute it.” The 

investigator referred the incident report to the Unit Discipline Committee “(UDC”). 

Millhouse appeared before the UDC and declined to make a statement. The UDC 

referred the charge to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) for further proceedings. 

Millhouse was informed of his rights at a discipline hearing on December 17, 

2013. Millhouse did not request a staff representative or to call any witnesses. On 

January 8, 2014, Millhouse appeared before DHO Lane for his discipline hearing and 

admitted to possessing alcohol. Based on Millhouse’s admission and the supporting 

documentation, DHO Lane concluded that the evidence supported a finding that 

Millhouse committed the prohibited act. DHO Lane sanctioned Millhouse to a 

disallowance of good conduct time of forty days and a loss of visiting and commissary 

privileges for ninety days. The DHO documented his findings in a written report and 

notified Millhouse of his appellate rights. 
3

On October 10, 2014, Millhouse filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his due process rights were violated during the 

disciplinary proceedings. The District Court denied his petition. Millhouse timely 

appealed. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Millhouse’s procedural due 

process challenge to the disciplinary hearing was properly brought under § 2241 because 

it entailed the loss of good time credits. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 

(1997). We review the District Court’s denial of habeas relief de novo and its factual 

findings for clear error. Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2013). 

In his brief, Millhouse argues that a different disciplinary hearing, regarding an 

incident where a knife was found in his mattress, violated his constitutional right to due 

process.1 It is well established that arguments not raised before the District Court are 

waived on appeal. DIRECTV Inc. v. Seijas, 508 F.3d 123, 125 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007). 

Moreover, Millhouse failed entirely to address in his brief the disciplinary hearing he 

challenged in his habeas corpus petition, and this failure constitutes a waiver on appeal. 

 

1 Millhouse’s habeas petition does not describe the incident underlying the disciplinary 

hearing he challenged. In response to the petition, the Respondent explained that,

although Millhouse did not provide a date, report number, or description of the incident,

he provided the administrative remedy numbers issued in his administrative appeal. With 

this information, the Respondent determined the disciplinary hearing occurred on January 

8, 2014, and concerned Millhouse’s possession of alcohol on December 14, 2013. See

Response, Dkt. 6 at 1-2 n.1. In his objections, Millhouse did not challenge the 

Respondent’s characterization of his petition as challenging the disciplinary hearing for 

his possession of alcohol. 
4

United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005) (“It is well settled that an 

appellant’s failure to identify or argue an issue in his opening brief constitutes waiver of 

that issue on appeal.”). In any event, the District Court correctly denied Millhouse’s 

petition. 

A disciplinary hearing that may result in the loss of good time credit must provide 

certain due process safeguards to a prisoner, including: (1) at least 24-hour advance 

notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary 

evidence; and (3) a written decision explaining the evidence relied upon and the reasons 

for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). The 

Supreme Court has held that “revocation of good time does not comport with the 

minimum requirements of procedural due process unless the findings of the prison 

disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record.” Superintendent v. Hill, 

472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This standard 

is not stringent and the relevant inquiry “is whether there is any evidence in the record 

that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56.

Millhouse contended in the District Court that he was precluded from appearing at 

his disciplinary hearing. He has failed to substantiate this claim. To the contrary, the 

evidence supports the District Court’s finding that Millhouse was present for his hearing 

before the DHO and that he was provided the requisite procedural safeguards. Millhouse 

was provided notice of the charges against him, had the opportunity to present witnesses 
5

and evidence, and received a copy of the DHO’s written report. The charge was 

supported by Millhouse’s admissions and BOP staff reports, and no contradictory 

evidence was presented. Although Millhouse requested that the District Court obtain and 

review a surveillance video, the District Court correctly declined to do so as minimum 

requirements of procedural due process do “not require examination of the entire record, 

independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.” 

Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.