United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1760

___________

Carroll James Flowers, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Marty C. Anderson, Warden, United *

States Medical Center for Federal *

Prisoners, *

*

Appellee. *

___________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

No. 11-1764 Western District of Missouri.

___________

Christopher Michael Dannar, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * 

*

Marty C. Anderson, Warden, United *

States Medical Center for Federal *

Prisoners, *

*

Appellee. *
___________

Submitted: September 23, 2011

 Filed: November 16, 2011

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Carroll Flowers and Michael Dannar, inmates at the United States Medical

Center for Federal Prisoners(“Medical Center”) in Springfield, Missouri, petitioned

for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. They alleged that their due

process rights were violated when the institution imposed discipline, including

revocation of good time credits, for possession of a weapon. The district court

*

dismissed the petitions, and we affirm.

As of July 2009, Flowers and Dannar were serving federal prison sentences

at the Medical Center. They were two of eight inmates assigned to Room 222 in

Ward W02 (8-2) of the facility.

During a search of Room 222 on July 30, 2009, a staff member discovered two

homemade, ice-pick type weapons. Each weapon was made from a metal rod and

sharpened to a point. The weapons were found between an electrical conduit and

the wall above the entry door to Room 222 in what the institution’s hearing officer

described as “the common area of the room.” The record does not include a diagram

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western *

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri. 

-2-
of Room 222 or describe it in any detail. The inmates characterize it as “an eight

man dorm room.”

The staff member reported that he noticed two lockers on one side of the entry

door to Room 222. One locker was short, the other tall. They were positioned right

next to each other, and both locker tops were dented, “like someone had been

standing on them.” The staff member climbed atop the taller locker, felt around the

electrical conduit, “against the wall, just below the ceiling,” and identified something

loose. He used a pen to push one of the weapons free from between the wall and the

conduit. The staff member then used a ladder to search the other side of the doorway,

and he located a second weapon between the wall and the conduit. 

The staff member completed an incident report, and the matter was referred to

a Unit Discipline Committee. The incident report said that during a search of Room

222, the staff member discovered two weapons “hidden behind electric conduit, in

the ceiling above the entry door.” The committee referred the charge to the

Disciplinary Hearing Officer for further hearing, with a recommendation that the

charge be expunged. The committee’s view was that the weapons were found in a

common area, and that all inmates in an adjacent dormitory had as much access to

the area as did Flowers and Dannar. 

The hearing officer convened a hearing ten days later. Flowers and Dannar

waived staff representation. Both inmates denied any knowledge of the weapons. 

They declined to submit documentary evidence or to request witnesses. As far as we

can discern, no evidence was presented regarding the proximity of another 

dormitory to Room 222 or the accessibility of Room 222 to inmates who are not

assigned to that room.

-3-
The hearing officer found that the greater weight of the evidence established

that both inmates had committed the prohibited act of possession of a weapon. The

report for each inmate reasoned as follows:

The two weapons were found in the common area of Room 222, where

all occupants of the room had access to them. All occupants of the

room are responsible for all items found in the common area of the

room. No special tools were required to retrieve the weapons. The

reporting staff member did use a ladder to retrieve one of the

weapons[;] however it is believed that the weapon could be recovered

without the ladder.

As sanctions, the hearing officer ordered the loss of 41 days of good conduct time,

30 days in disciplinary segregation, and loss of commissary and telephone 

privileges for 90 days.

After exhausting administrative remedies, Flowers and Dannar filed petitions

for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that the sanctions

deprived them of liberty without due process of law, because there was no evidence

that they committed the charged offense. To augment the incident report and the

decision of the hearing officer, the warden presented evidence that when inmates

arrive at the Medical Center, they are given a copy of a handbook that includes the

following statement:

It is the inmate’s responsibility to check his living area immediately

after being assigned there, and to report all damage to the Correctional

Officer, Case Manager, or Counselor. An inmate may be financially

liable for any damage to his or her personal living area and is

responsible for any contraband found within his personal living area.

A captain who oversees correctional supervision atthe MedicalCenter declared

that Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5270.07 and a federal regulation provide

-4-
that “inmates have the responsibility to keep their areas free of contraband.” The

Program Statement is not in the record or available through the Bureau’s website. 

The regulation, entitled “Inmate rights and responsibilities,” states that among an

inmate’s responsibilities is “to keep your area free of contraband.” 28 C.F.R.

§ 541.12 (2009).

The district court, adopting a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge,

dismissed the petitions. The court determined that “under the very low standard

dictated by the Supreme Court” in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56

(1985), there was “some evidence” to support the decisions of the hearing officer,

and that the decisions thus complied with the requirements of due process. We

review the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. See Lopez-Lopez

v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010).

In Hill, the Supreme Court addressed whether findings of a prison disciplinary

board that result in the loss of good time credits must be supported by a certain

amount of evidence in order to satisfy due process. The Court observed that while

the inmate has a strong interest in avoiding arbitrary deprivations, that interest “must

be accommodated in the distinctive setting of a prison, where disciplinary

proceedings take place in a closed, tightly controlled environment peopled by those

who have chosen to violate the criminal law and who have been lawfully

incarcerated for doing so.” 472 U.S. at 454 (internal quotation omitted). After citing

the institution’s legitimate interests, including that of “avoiding burdensome

administrative requirements that might be susceptible to manipulation,” the Court

held that “the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports

the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.” Id. at

455. This “some evidence” standard “does not require examination of the entire

record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the

evidence.” Id. If there is “any evidence in the record” that could support the finding

-5-
of the disciplinary authority, then the sanctions comport with due process. Id. at 455-

56.

The Court in Hill upheld a state prison’s revocation of good time credits for

three inmates who were seen fleeing the scene of an assault, despite the conclusion

of the state court that the evidence was insufficient to support an inference that more

than one of the inmates had struck the victim. The Court concluded that while the

evidence “might be characterized as meager, and there was no direct evidence

identifying any one of three inmates as the assailant,” the record was not so devoid

of evidence as to make the findings of the institution without support or otherwise

arbitrary. Id. at 457. Flowers and Dannar disagree with the “some evidence”

standard announced in Hill, but acknowledge that it is binding on this court.

The warden here argues that all inmates assigned to Room 222 at the Medical

Center are collectively responsible for weapons found in that room. He contendsthat

Flowers and Dannar had a responsibility under prison rules to keep the area free of

contraband, and that the discovery of weapons in a common area of their room thus

constitutes “some evidence” that they possessed the weapons. This court accepted

a collective responsibility theory in Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1990),

where discipline was imposed on one inmate based on evidence found in a locker

box that he shared with another inmate who admitted culpability. Id. at 680;see also

id. at 680 (Heaney, J., dissenting) (“I would . . . have no trouble in concurring if the

prison rules made Mason responsible for any items found in the joint locker which

violated prison rules, but the prison rules do not so provide.”). Other courts

likewise have relied on collective culpability for contraband found in a shared area

as “some evidence” to support sanctions in prison discipline cases. See Shelby v.

Whitehouse, 399 F. App’x 121, 122 (7th Cir. 2010); Flannagan v. Tamez, 368 F.

App’x 586, 588 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2010); Santiago v. Nash, 224 F. App’x 175, 177 (3d

Cir. 2007); Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 344-45 (7th Cir. 1992).

-6-
Flowers and Dannar do not contest the general proposition that an inmate’s

failure to keep his living area free of contraband may constitute some evidence of a

violation when contraband is found in that area. Their challenge is narrower. The

inmates argue that because the weapons were found outside of the area for which

they were responsible, and that they could not access the location without violating

a rule against entering an “unauthorized area,” the discovery of the weapons in this

case was not evidence that justified revocation of good time credits.

We conclude that the record includes “some evidence” that the staff member

discovered weapons in a common area of Room 222 for which Flowers and Dannar

shared responsibility. The incident report reflects that the weapons were found

inside Room 222, above the entry door. The inmates concede that Room 222 is an

eight-man dorm room to which they were assigned. While the inmates assert that

the weapons were found “above the ceiling,” and that inmates have no responsibility

or authority to “inspect the area above the ceiling tiles,” there is some evidence that

the weapons were found below the ceiling in an area that could be accessed by

standing on a locker. A message from the staff member, reprinted in the hearing

officer’s decision, states that the weapons were found “against the wall, just below

the ceiling.” There was circumstantial evidence that the weapons had been placed

behind an electrical conduit by someone climbing on two lockers, which were

dented on top and arranged below the place of discovery in a stair-step formation. 

The staff member recovered one of the weapons by standing on the lockers. 

On this record, we are not convinced that the hearing officer lacked any

evidence to conclude that the weapons were found in a common area of the room to

which Flowers and Dannar were assigned. There is evidence to refute the inmates’

contention that the weapons were above the ceiling tiles, and the inmates presented

no evidence that the location between the conduit and the wall, below the ceiling, is

an “unauthorized area” that inmates cannot reach under prison rules. We thus need

-7-
not address how the prison may proceed if contraband is discovered in an area that

is outside an inmate’s living area and off-limits to inmates.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-8-