### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-31007 Summary Calendar

WALLACE DEEN-MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant

v. J. P. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CV-411

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wallace Deen-Mitchell, federal prisoner # 51443-060, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition c h all e nging on due process grounds actions taken by Warden Young. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Deen-Mitchell’s § 2241 petition on the pleadings. Garland v. Roy , 615 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir. 2010). The instant habeas petition included claims that should have been raised in a civil rights ac t i o n . Those claims include the following: (1) physical and U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 24 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-31007 Document: 00512030778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2012No. 11-31007

sexual assault on Dee n - M itchell by prison personnel; (2) Young’s threats and attempts to place Deen-Mitchell in a cell with his known enemies; and (3) DeenMitchell’s plac e m e n t in the Special Management Unit at FCI Oakdale, which affected his opportunity to earn good-time credits. As a favorable determination

on these claims would not automatically entitle Deen-Mitchell to an accelerated release, the district court properly dismissed these claims as civil rights claims that were not properly brought in a § 2241 petition. See Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). Deen-Mi t c h e l l ’ s civil rights claims were reiterated in a separate action that was the subject of a separate appeal. Accordingly, those claims and Deen-Mitchell’s contentio n th at his allegations showed he was in imminent danger when he fil e d th o s e claims will not be addressed here. We turn now to the allegations that Deen-Mitchell’s du e p rocess rights

were violated when Young took away, on two separate occasions, 27 and 57 days of good-time credits without a hearing. We assume argu e n d o that federal prisoners have a liberty interest in their good-time credits. See Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons , 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (analyzi n g wh e ther the revocation of good-time credits for a federal prisoner’s drug infraction violated due process); but see Pepper v. United States , 131 S. Ct. 1229, 1248 n.14 (2011) (statin g th a t “[a]n award of good time credit by the [BOP] does not affect the length of a court-imposed sentence,” and that “[s]uch credits may be revoked at any time before the date of a prisoner’s release”). The “revocation of such credit must comply with minimal procedural requirements.” Henson , 213 F.3d at 898. Th o se requirements include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and wri t t e n findings in support of the action. See Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974). The magistrate judge (MJ) found that no determination could be made on Deen-Mitchell’s due-process habeas claims, or even whether he had exhausted those claims, without more information regarding the actions allegedly taken by
2 Case: 11-31007 Document: 00512030778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2012No. 11-31007

Youn g . The MJ ordered Deen-Mitchell to submit all relevant documents rel atin g to those actions and to provide more information on his claims. Deen-Mitchell replied that there had been no disciplinary proceedings prior to the forfeiture of his good-time credits. The district court determined that Deen-Mitch e l l had failed to c o mply with the MJ’s order and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that he had thus failed to state a claim on which relief could be gr anted. Deen-Mitchell argues on appeal that the district court’s dismissal of hi s petition on this basis indicates that the district court did not c o m p r e hend his allegation that there had been no disciplinary proceedings here. Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain s t a t e m e n t of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. I q b a l , 5 5 6 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-un l a wfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The failure by prison officials to comply with their own regulations does not by itself establish a violation of due process, “because constitutional minima may nevertheless have been met.” Jackson v. Cain , 8 6 4 F

. 2 d 1235, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Deen-Mitchell has never specified by what mechanism or under what circumstances his good-time credits

were forfeited or what steps, if any, he took to challenge the forfeitures and the lac k o f a t t e ndant procedures. Accordingly, he has not shown that the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition was errone o u s . Se e I qbal , 556 U.S. at 677-78. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-31007 Document: 00512030778 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2012