IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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 challenging 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 action. Those claims include the following: (1) physical and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 24, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

sexual assault on Deen-Mitchell by prison personnel; (2) Young’s threats and

attempts to place Deen-Mitchell in a cell with his known enemies; and (3) DeenMitchell’s placement 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-Mitchell’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 contention that his allegations

showed he was in imminent danger when he filed those claims will not be

addressed here.

We turn now to the allegations that Deen-Mitchell’s due process rights

were violated when Young took away, on two separate occasions, 27 and 57 days

of good-time credits without a hearing. We assume arguendo 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) (analyzing whether 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)

(stating that “[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. 

Those requirements include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and written

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: 10/24/2012
No. 11-31007

Young. The MJ ordered Deen-Mitchell to submit all relevant documents relating

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-Mitchell had

failed to comply 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

granted. Deen-Mitchell argues on appeal that the district court’s dismissal of his

petition on this basis indicates that the district court did not comprehend his

allegation that there had been no disciplinary proceedings here.

Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 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-unlawfully-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, 864 F.2d 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

lack of attendant procedures. Accordingly, he has not shown that the district

court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition was erroneous. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

677-78.

AFFIRMED.

3

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