1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1030

___________ J E F F R E Y E . S IM P S O N , A ppel l ant

v. B . A . B L E D SO E , W ar den

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 01591) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 26, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , C H A G A R E S A N D W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : M ay4 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

J eff r eyE . Si m ps on, a fe der al i nm at e, appea l s fr om the deni al of hi s habea s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f f i r m. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 , w h ile h o u se d a t F C I-A llen w o o d , S im p so n w a s c h a rg e d in2

an i nci dentr eportw i th vi ol at i ng B ur eau of Pr i s ons D i s ci pl i naryC ode 218, w hi ch p ro h ib its D e s tr o y in g , A lte ri n g , o r D a m a g in g P ro p e rt yV a lu e d in E x c e s s o f $ 1 0 0 . A ccor di ng t o a i nci dentr eportpr epar ed byO ffi cerR . W . A l exande r , Si m ps on had re m o v e d stu f

f in g f ro m h is m a ttres s a n d f

a sh io n e d it i n to a p ill o w . B a se d o n th e se v e rity o f th e p o ss ib le s a n c tio n s, th e U n it D isc ip lin e C o m m itt e e (“ U D C ” ) re f e rre d th e m a tter to the D i s ci pl i naryH ear i ng O ffi cer( “D H O ”) . See 28 C . F. R . § 541. 15( h) . Si m ps on r eques t ed thatO ffi cerA l exande rappea ras a w i tnes s and as ked fori nform at i on i n a “l og book as t o t he condi t i on of the mat tr es s [upon] Si m ps on’ s arr i val i n the ce l l . ” A tthe D H O hear i ng, Si m ps on acknow l edged thathe had r emoved m at er i al fr om i ns i de the m a ttr e s s , b u t c la im e d th a t th e m a ttr e s s w a s a lr e a d yd a m a g e d w h e n it w a s is s u e d to h im .

I n an i ni t i al r eporti s s ued on February27, 2009, the D H O found Si m ps on gui l ty , ci t i ng Si m ps on’ s t es t i m ony , the i nci dentr eport , and a mem or andum from a B ur eau of Pr i s on’ s empl oy ee s t at i ng thatthe r epl ace m entcos tof the mat tr es s w as $122. 50. T he r eportdi d noti ndi cat e w hetherO ffi cerA l exande rt es t i fi ed, butthe D H O ’ s hear i ng w or ks heets t at ed “A l exande rdecl i ned - w r ot e r eport . ” The D H O or der ed Si m ps on t o pay r e s t i tu t i o n , i mp o s e d 3 0 d a y s o f d i s c i p l i n a rys e g r e g a t i o n , d i s a l l o we d g o o d c o n d u c tt i me ( 27 ves t ed day s and 13 non- ves t ed day s ) , and i m pounded hi s per s onal pr opertyforone m onth. S im p s o n a p p e a le d to th e B u re a u o f P ri s o n s N o rt h e a s t R e g io n a l O f f ic e . W hi l e the appe al w as pendi ng, the D H O i s s ued an a m ended r eportnot i ng thatO ffi cerT he D i s tr i ctC our thel d i n partthat“t o the ext entthatSi m ps on cl ai m s thathi s del ay 1 i n the r ecei pt of hi s i nit i al heari ng viol at ed the B O P ’s regul at i on s and h i s due p rocess rig h ts, th e C o u rt f

in d s n o m e rit to th is a rg u m e n t.” S im p so n d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th is c o n c lu sio n o n a p p e a l. 3 A lex a n d e r h a d in f

a c t tes tifie d a t th e h e a rin g , b u t th a t h is “ tes tim o n yw a s a c c id e n tally s tr i cken f

r om the [i ni t i al ] D H O r eport . ” A ccor di ng t o the amended r eport , O ffi cer A l exande rexpl ai ned thatSi m ps on “w as i s s ued a good mat tr es s ” and that“[w ] e do not g iv e th e m a ttres se s o u t if th e ya re to rn .” T h e R e g io n a l O f f ice d e n ied th e a p p e a l, concl udi ng thatthe D H O ’ s deci s i on w as “bas ed upon the gr eat erw ei ghtof the evi dence a n d th e s a n c tio n s im p o s e d w e re c o n s is te n t w ith th e s e v e ri ty le v e l o f th e p ro h ib ite d a c t.” Si m ps on fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n the U ni t ed St at es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e M idd le D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia ch all en g ing the d isci p li n ary pr ocee di ng and the l os s of good- conductt i m e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the pet i t i on, concl udi ng thatSi m ps on’ s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed and thatther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe D H O ’ s deci s i on. Si m ps on appea l ed. W e have 1 appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew i s pl enaryovera di s tr i ct court ’ s l egal concl us i ons . R i os v. W i l ey , 201 F. 3d 257, 262 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e may aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our ton anybas i s s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. See Fai r vi ew T w p. v. E P A , 7 7 3 F .2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 5 n .1 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ).

A pr i s onerfac i ng the l os s of good- conductt i m e as a r es ul tof an i nfr act i on i s ent i t l ed t o cert ai n pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons i n the di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs . See W ol ff v.4

M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 564- 65 ( 1974) . T he mi ni m um r equi r ed pr ot ect i ons ar e: “( 1) advanc e w r i t t en not i ce of the di s ci pl i narychar ges ; ( 2) an opportuni ty , w hen cons i s t ent w ith insti tuti o n al saf

etyan d co rrecti o n al go als, to ca ll w itn esse s an d p rese n t do cu m en tary evi dence i n hi s defe ns e; and ( 3) a w r i t t en s t at ementbythe fa ct fi nderof the evi dence r e l i e d o n a nd the r e a s on s fo rthe di s c i pl i na rya c t i on . ” Sup e r i nt e nd e ntv. H i l l , 47 2 U. S. 445, 454 ( 1985) . I n addi t i on, t o comportw i th the r equi r ement s of due pr oces s , the deci s i on of the D H O m us tbe s uppor t ed by“s om e evi dence . ” I d. T he “s om e evi dence ” s t andar d does notr equi r e exa m i nat i on of the ent i r e r ecor d, i ndepende ntas s es s m entof the cr edi bi l i tyof w i tnes s es , orw ei ghi ng of the evi dence . I d. at455- 56. “[T] he r el evant ques t i on i s w hetherther e i s anyevi dence i n the r ecor d thatcoul d s uppor tthe conc l us i on r eac hed bythe di s ci pl i naryboar d. ” I d.

Si m ps on al l eges thatthe D H O fal s el ycl ai m ed i n the amended r eportthat O f f ice r A lex a n d e r h a d tes tifie d a t th e h e a rin g . A c c o rd in g to S im p so n ’s c o m p lain t, O ffi cerA l exande r“w as notw or ki ng on m yhear i ng dat e, he w as i n fac ti n tr ai ni ng for th a t w e e k !” N o ta b ly, th o u g h , S im p s o n o f f e rs n o e v id e n c e c o n f

ir m in g th is a s s e rt io n . T h u s, the o n lysu p p o rtfo r S im p so n ’s fa lsi fica ti o n arg u m en t i s the n o tat ion o n the D H O ’s h e a rin g w o rk sh e e t th a t O f f ice r A lex a n d e r “ d e c lin e d ” a n d th e o m iss io n o f a n yre f e re n c e to O ffi cerA l exande r ’ s t es t i m onyi n t he i ni t i al r eport . I n l i ghtof the D H O ’ s expl anat i on t hat O f f ic e r A le x a n d e r’ s “ te s tim o n yw a s a c c id e n ta lly str ic k e n f ro m th e [ in itia l] D H O re p o rt ,” h o w ev er, w e c o n clud e tha t th e p erc eive d d iscrep an cies in th e re co rd d o n o t sup p o rtFur therm or e, w e not e thatO ffi cerA l exande r ’ s abs ence fr om the hea r i ng w oul d not 2 nece s s ar i l yr es ul ti n a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. I ndeed, “[t ] he r eport i ng offi cerand other a d v e rse w itn e ss e s n e e d n o t b e c a lled if th e ir k n o w led g e o f

th e in c id e n t is a d e q u a tely s um m ar i zed i n t he I nci dentR eportand otheri nves t i gat i ve mat er i al s s uppl i ed t o the D H O . ” 2 8 C . F . R . § 5 4 1 . 1 7 (c). 5 S i m pson ’s cl ai m s. 2

Si m ps on al s o compl ai ns thathe w as notperm i t t ed t o cal l as a w i tnes s an “unknow n offi cer ” ori ntr oduce doc um ent aryevi dence t o es t abl i s h thathe “w as i s s ued a damaged m attr es s w hi ch di d noti n fac texce ed $100 i n val ue. ” Pr i ort o the hea r i ng, S im p so n w as p rov ided w ith an o p p o rtu n ityto ide n ti fyan yw itn esse s h e w ishe d to ca ll . In r es pons e, Si m ps on named onl yO ffi cerA l exande r . M or eover , the D H O ’ s r eportr efl ect ed that“[a ] tthe out s etof thi s hear i ng, [Si m ps on] . . . w ai ved . . . w i tnes s t es t i m ony . ” S i m pson al so asked for i nfo rm at i on i n a “log b oo k as t o the con dit i on of the m at tres s [u p o n ] S im p so n ’s arri v al i n the c ell . ” S ee H arp er v . L ee , 9 3 8 F . 2 d 1 0 4 , 1 0 5 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (s u g g e stin g d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n o c c u rre d w h e re d isc ip lin a ryc o m m itt e e in iti a lly ref u sed to allow intr o d u cti o n o f p ri so n log b o o k s co n tai n ing all eg ed lyex cu lpato ry i nform at i on) . B ut , gi ven Si m ps on’ s admi s s i on thathe had r emoved m at er i al fr om the m attr es s t o m ake a pi l l ow , evi dence of pr i ordamage t o the mat tr es s w oul d nothave be en excul pat ory . See G r os s m an v. B ruce, 447 F. 3d 801, 805 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( appl y i ng harm l es s err orr evi ew “t o a habe as pet i t i on al l egi ng a deni al of the r i ghtt o pr es ent w itn e s s e s a t p ri s o n d is c ip lin a ry h e a ri n g .” ).Fi nal l y , w e r ej ectSi m ps on’ s cl ai m thatthe al l eged pr i ordamage t o the

m attr es s r educe d i t s val ue t o an amountbel ow the $100 thr es hol d r equi r ed fora vi ol at i on of D i s ci pl i naryC ode 218. T o the ext entSi m ps on chal l enges the w ei ghtof the evi dence , w e c o n clud e tha t th e D H O ’s de term ination is ad eq u atelysu p p o rt ed b yS im p so n ’s adm i ssi on s, the inci den treport , and the m em orandu m i nd i cat i ng that the repl acem ent cost of the mat t r es s w as $122. 50.

T her efor e, w e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entdeny i ng habea s r el i ef.



### 6