# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 34 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Add on es Sp en cer

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ant ho ny Hay

ne s, Di sc ip li na ry

Heari ng Offic er, FCI - Fo rres t Ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 10 , 20 14
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 17 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Add on es Sp en cer ap pe al s the dis tr ic t co ur t' s or de r di sm is si ng hi s ha be as co rp us

pe ti ti on al le gi ng a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t c l a i m ag ai ns t hi s fo rm er cu st od ia n,

Ant ho ny Hay ne s, th e fo rm er W ard en of th e Fed eral Co rrec ti on al In st it ut io n - Fo rres t

Ci ty. Our pr eced en t pr ecl ud es co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m s us in g th e ve hi cl e of

a h ab eas pe ti ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d ou r pr eced en t an d di sm is se d Sp en ce r ' scl ai m

. Howev er, th e co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. W e ho ld th at th e

di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve li be ral ly co ns tru ed Sp en cer's pr o se ha be as p e t i t i on an d
gi ve n Sp en cer th e op ti on to pu rs ue th e cl ai m un de r Bive ns v. Si x Unk no wn Na med
Age nt s of Fed er al Bur ea u of

Na rc ot ic s , 40 3 U.S. 38 8 (1 97 1)

. W e rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

W hi le an in m at e in Fed eral Co rr ec tio na l In sti tu ti on - Fo rres t Ci ty, Sp en cer was 1

as si g n e d a cel l fo r a m ed ic al as se ss m en t. Co rrec ti on al Offi cer Lieu te na nt Mar k A.

Sh el do n en te red th e cel l to as si st st aff wit h ch eck in g Sp en cer's res tra in ts

. S p e n cer
ba ck ed hi m se lf in to a c o r n e r , was ve rb al ly ab us iv e, an d cl ai m ed he di d no t ne ed a

m ed ic al as se ss m en t. St aff m em be rs to ld Sp en cer to si t do wn on th e bu nk

, bu t Sp en cer

was un co op erat iv e an d ag gr es si ve ly res is t e d t he st aff. W hi le Sp en cer was fo rci bl y
be in g pl aced on th e be d, he bi t Sh el do n's ab do m en

. Sp en cer was th en p la ced in

"fo ur -p oi nt " r e s t r a i n t s aro un d 9: 10 a.m . a nd was no t rem ov ed fro m th os e res tra in ts

un ti l 3: 45 p.m

. th e fo ll owi ng da y acco rd in g to Bu reau of P ris on s do cu m en ts

. Afte r 2

a he ari ng , th e Dis ci pl in ary Heari ng Offi cer fo un d th at Sp en cer as sa ul te d Sh el do n an d

di sc ip li ne d S pe nc er wi th lo ss es of p riv il eg es

. 3

Sp en cer ha s si nc e be en m ov ed fro m th is faci li ty an d h e c u r ren tl y is in th e 1

cu st od y of Un it ed Sta te s Pr is on Beau m on t i n B eau m on t, Tex as

.
Sp en cer a ll eg es in hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on th at he was re st rai ne d fo r "3 to 4 d ay s 2

wit ho ut fo od or wate r," th at he ha d to m ov e hi s bo wels whi le in th e res tra in t s, an d
th at he ha d to la y in hi s own bo dy was te

. The se al le ga ti on s were no t co ns is te nt wit h
th e d is tri ct co ur t's fin di ng s, s o we d o n ot ad dr es s t he m he re.

The lo ss of pr iv il eg es in cl ud ed 45 da y s of d is ci pl in ary se gr eg at io n, a lo ss of 3

36 5 da y s of co m

m is sa ry pr iv il eg es , ph o n e p r iv il eg es , an d vi si ta ti on pr iv il eg es , a di sa ll owa nc e o f 2 7 da y s of go od co nd uc t ti m e, an d a fo rfei tu re of 27 da y s of no nve st ed go od co nd uc t ti m e. Goo d co nd uc t ti m e us ua ll y refe rs to a se nt en ce red uc ti on gi ve n to pr is on ers who m ai nt ai n go od co nd uc t. Se e McIn to sh v. Uni te d St at es Par ol e Co mm'n

, 11 5 F.3 d 8 0 9, 81 2 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 97 ) (s ta ti ng "a § 22 41 act io n ch al le ng in g

-2

-Sp en cer br ou gh t a pe ti ti on fo r ha be as co rp us al le gi ng , a m on g ot he r th in gs , a

Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n fo r be in g pu t in fo ur -p oi nt res tra in ts wit ho ut

be in g affo rd ed a he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t ne ve r reac he d th e m eri ts of th is cl ai m , bu t

in st ead di sm is se d th e ha be as pe ti ti on wit ho ut pr ej u di ce be cau se it co nc lu de d th at

co nd it io ns -o f-conf

ine m en t cl ai m s can no t be rai se d in th e co nt ex t of ha be as pe ti ti on s. 4

On ap pe al

, we ap po in te d c o u n se l fo r Sp en cer an d req ue st ed br ie fin g on (i)

whe th er th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er ha be as pe ti ti on s un de r 28 U.S.C.
§ 22 41 th at co m

bi ne un la wfu l cu st od y cl ai m s wit h un rel at ed co nd it io ns -o fco nf in em en t cl ai m s, an d if no t, (ii ) whe th er t h e p r o p er di sp os it io n is to di sm is s th e

l a t t er wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, or li be ral ly co ns tru e th e pr o se pe ti ti on an d de c i d e t h e

co nd it io ns -o f-co nf

in em en t cl ai m s u nd er Bive ns pr in ci pl es

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. § 2 24 1 J

ur is di ct io n

"We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of a § 22 41 pe ti ti on de no vo ." Flo wer s

v. And er so n , 66 1 F.3 d 97 7, 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (em ph as is in or ig in al ) (ci ti ng Lo pezLo pe z v. Sa nd er

s , 59 0 F.3 d 90 5, 90 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 10 )). As we st at ed in Kr ug er v.

Eri cks on , "[i ]f th e pr is on er is no t ch al le ng in g th e va l i d i t y o f h is co nv ic ti on or th e
le ng th of hi s de te nt io n, su ch as lo ss of go od ti m e, th en a writ of ha be as co rp us is no t

th e pr op er rem ed y ." 77 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 73 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ti ng Prei se r

v. Rod ri gu ez , 41 1 U.S. 47 5, 49 9 (1 97 3) ). Sp en cer do es no t ch al le ng e hi s co nv ic ti on ,

pr is on di sc ip li na ry pr oc eed in gs , su ch as th e de pr iv at io n of go od -ti m e cred it s, is no t ch al le ng in g pr is on co nd it io ns , it is ch al le ng in g an act io n affe ct in g th e fact or du rat io n of th e pe ti ti on er's cu st od y "). Sp en cer ha s no t ap pe al ed th e di sm is sa l of hi s lo st -p riv il eg es cla im s n or ch al le ng ed th e v al id it y of t he di sc ip li na ry

he ari ng

.

A m ag is tra te jud ge fu ll y art ic ul at ed th is fin di ng an d m ad e the re co m m en da tio n 4

to th e di st ric t cou rt to di sm is s th e ha be as pe ti ti on , and th e di st ric t cou rt ado pt ed th e

m ag is tra te 's fi nd in gs an d re co m m en da ti on s i n fu ll

.

-3

-no r do es he se ek a rem ed y th at wou ld res ul t in an earl ie r rel eas e fro m pr is on

. Rat he r,

Sp en cer arg ue s on ap pe al th at be in g pu t in fo ur -p oi nt res tra in ts fo r su ch an ex te nd ed

pe rio d of ti m e vi ol at ed hi s Eig ht h Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai n s t c r u el an d un us ua l

pu ni sh m en t. As su ch

, Sp en cer's co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m rel at es to th e co nd it io ns of hi s

5

co nf in em en t. Se e, e

. g. , Key v. McKi nn ey , 17 6 F.3 d 10 83

, 10 85 –8 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )
(fi nd in g th at a pr is on er's al le ga ti on of an un co ns ti tu ti on al us e of ha nd cu ff res tra in ts

an d le g sh ack le s fo r 24 ho ur s was a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m an d al le ge d a
vi ol at io n of th e pr is on er's Eig ht h Am en dm en t ri ght s)

. Co nse que ntl y , a ha be as pe ti ti on
is no t t he pro pe r cl ai m

to rem ed y

hi s al le ge d i nju ry

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t's Prei se r de ci si on le ft op en "t he qu es ti on of th e pr op rie ty

of us in g a writ of ha be as co rp us to ob ta in rev ie w o f th e co nd it io ns of co nf in em en t,

as di st in ct fro m th e fact or le ng th of th e co nf in em en t." Bell v. W

ol fi sh

, 44 1 U.S. 52 0,

52 6 n.6 (1 97 9)

. As a res ul t, a sp li t ha s ari se n am on gs t ou r si st er ci rcu it s on th is is su e. 6

Sp en cer's or ig in al ha be as pe ti ti on in t h e di st ric t co ur t al le ge d a Fi fth 5

Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n fo r be in g pu t in to th e fo ur -p oi nt res tra in ts wit ho ut a h eari ng . On ap pe al , ho wev er, it app ears th at Sp en cer n ow as se rts ex cl us iv el y th at b e i ng pu t in th e res tra in ts fo r an ex te nd ed pe rio d vi ol at ed hi s Eig ht h Am en dm e n t rig ht s ag ai ns t cr ue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t.

As ou tl in ed ex te ns iv el y in Aamer v

. Oba ma , 74 2 F.3 d 10 23 (D.C. Ci r. 20 14 ) 6

th e co ur ts of ap pe al s are di vi de d on whe th er ha be as pe t i ti on s are ap pr op ria te

pr oc ed ur al ve hi cl es by whi ch to rem ed y co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl a i ms

. I

d

. at
10 36 –3 8

. The D.C. Ci rcu it

, th e Seco nd Ci rcu it

, th e Thi rd Ci rcu it

, th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it

,
an d th e Si xt h Ci rcu it fir m ly st an d in th e cam p of al lo win g co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m s to be br ou gh t in th e ha be as co rp us co nt ex t, wit h th e Fi rs t Ci rcu it co nt rib ut in g di ct um to th is vi ew. Se e id

. , 74 2 F.3 d at 10 26

, 10 35 –3 6 (fi nd in g th at pr is on ers br in gi ng a co nd it io ns -o f-co n fin em en t cl ai m whe re th ey were fo rce- fed whi le

at te m pt in g a h u n g er st rik e was ap pr op ria te un de r a ha be as pe ti ti on ); Ada ms v. Bra ds ha w , 64 4 F.3 d 48 1, 48 2– 83 (6 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th at a st at e
pr is on er's Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to th e st at e of Ohi o's le th al in jecti on
pr oc ed ur es was ap pr op ria te in th e co nt ex t o f a h a b e as pe ti ti on ) ; Th omp so n v. Ch oi ns ki

, 52 5 F.3 d 20 5, 20 6, 20 9 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th at a pr is on er's co nd it io ns

-

-4

-Not wit hs ta nd in g, we are bo un d by ou r po st

- Prei se r pr eced en t. Se e Mad er v. Uni te d

St at es , 65 4 F.3 d 79 4, 80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )

. W e, th eref or e, ap pl y ou r pr eced en t in

Kr ug er , whi ch is co ns is te nt wit h th e ho ld in gs of th e Fi fth Ci rcu it

, th e S e v e n t h

Ci rcu i t

, th e Nin th Ci rcu it

, an d th e Ten th Ci rcu it

, wit h th e Elev en th Ci rcu it

7 8 9

of -co nf in em en t cl ai m was ap pr op ria te un de r a ha be as pe ti ti on whe re he w as de ni ed

acce ss to th e pr is on li br ary, de ni ed ko sh e r f o o d, an d co nt es te d pr is on di sc ip li ne ) (ci ti ng Ji min ia n v. Na sh , 2 45 F.3d 14 4, 1 46 (2d . Cir . 2 00 1) ("A m ot io n pu rs ua nt to § 22 41 ge ne ral ly ch al le ng es th e exec ut io n of a fed eral pr is on er's se nt en ce, in cl ud in g

su ch m at te rs as th e ad m in is tra ti on of pa ro le

, co m pu ta ti on of a pr is on er's se nt en ce by

pr is on of fic ia ls

, pr is on di sc ip li na ry act io ns , pr is on tra ns fers

, type of de te nt io n an d

pr is on co nd it io ns .") (em

ph as is in or ig in al )); W

oo da ll v. Fed

. Bur ea u of

Pri so ns , 43 2

F. 3d 23 5, 24 2 n.5

, 24 3 (3 d Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at a pr is on er's ch al le ng e to

reg ul at io ns li m it in g th e op po rtu ni ty fo r pl acement in co m m un it y co nf

in em en t co ul d

pr oc eed by way of ha be as co rp us " e v e n i f wha t is at is su e

. . . is 'co nd it io ns of

co nf in em en t.'" ); McNa ir v. McCu ne , 52 7 F.2 d 87 4, 87 5 (4 th Ci r. 19 75 ) (p er cu ria m ) ("We ho ld th ere is fed eral ha be as co rp us juri sd ic ti on ov er th e co m pl ai nt of a fed eral

pr is o n e r who is ch al le ng in g no t th e va li di ty of hi s or ig in al co nv ic ti on , bu t th e im po si ti on of se gr eg at ed co nf in em en t wit ho ut el em en ta ry pr oc ed ural du e pr oc es s an d
wit ho ut jus t cau se

. "); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. DeLeo n , 44 4 F.3 d 41

, 59 (1 st Ci r. 20 06 ) (s ta ti ng in di ct um "[i ]f th e co nd it io ns of in carc erat io n rai se Eig ht h Am en dm en t

co nc ern s, h ab eas co rp us is av ai la bl e")

.

Gla us v. And er

so n , 4 0 8 F

. 3 d 38 2, 38 6– 88 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at a 7

pr is on er's req ue st to be tra ns ferr ed to a pr is on faci li ty th at co ul d gi ve hi m pr op er

m ed ic al tre at m en t fo r Hep at it is C was in ap pr op ria te un de r a ha be as pe ti ti on be cau se it was a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m ).

The weig ht of Nin th Ci rcu it pr eced en t di sa pp ro ve s of us in g ha be as pe ti ti on s 8

fo r co nd it io ns -o f-conf

ine m en t cl ai m s. Se e Doc ken v. Ch as e , 39 3 F.3 d 10 24

, 10 31 (9 th
Ci r. 20 04 ); Rami re

z v. Gal az a , 33 4 F.3d 85 0, 85 9 (9 th Ci r. 20 03 ); Nea l v. Sh imo da

, 13 1 F.3 d 81 8, 82 4 (9 th Ci r. 19 97 ); But te rf ie ld v. Bai l

, 12 0 F.3 d 10 23

, 10 24 (9 th Ci r. 19 97 ); Cr aw

fo rd v. Bell , 59 9 F .2d 89 0, 8 91 –9 2 (9 th Cir . 19 79 )

.

Mon te z v. McKi nn a , 20 8 F.3 d 86 2, 86 4 (1 0t h C ir. 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th at a 9

pr is on er's al le ga ti on tha

t be ing m ov ed be twee n se ve ral pr is on in st it ut io ns vi ol at ed hi s Co ns ti tu ti on rig ht s was ap pr op ria te un de r a h ab eas pe ti ti on be cau se it was a hybri d

-5

-co nt rib ut in g to th is vi ew in an un pu bl is he d de ci si on

. Se e, e.g

. , Co ok v. Han be rr y , 59 2

F.2 d 24 8, 24 8 (5 th Ci r. 1 9 7 9 ) ( p e r cu ria m ) (fi nd in g th at a pr is on er's req ue st fo r

tra ns fer ba ck to a W es t Co as t faci li ty whe re he was pr ev io us ly in carc erat ed co ul d no t

be br o u g ht un de r a ha be as pe ti ti on be cau se "[h ]abeas co rp us is no t av ai la bl e to

pr is on ers co m

pl ai ni ng on ly o f m is tre at m en t" an d "[t ]he rel ie f f ro m [th e pe ti ti on er's

in jury] , [i]f pro ve d, i s i n th e fo rm of eq ui ta bl y -impos ed res tra in t, no t free do m fro m

ot he rwis e la wfu l i nc arce rat io n" ).

B. Li be ra l Tr ea tmen t o

f Pr o S e Hab ea s Pet it io ns

W e co ns tru e Sp en cer' s p r o s e pe ti ti on li be ral ly. Here, an ap pr op ria te

co ns tru ct io n wou ld be to rech ara ct eri ze Sp en cer's cl ai m in to th e co rrec t pr oc ed ur al

ve hi cl e fo r th e cl ai m as se rte d. In Pap an to ny v. Hed ri ck

, 21 5 F.3 d 86 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )
(p er cu ria m ), we up he ld a di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of a ha be as pe ti ti on ch al le ng in g

fo rced m ed ic at io n; ne ve rth el es s, be cau se "[w]e

. . . reco gn iz e[d ] [th e pe ti ti on er] [was ]

a pr o se pe ti ti on er an d, as su ch

, sh ou ld no t un reas o n a b l y be su bjec te d to st rin ge nt

pr oc ed ur al ni cet ie s," we co ns tru ed t h e a c t i o n as a Bive ns cl ai m

. Id

. at 86 5. Our

de ci si on in Y

ou ng v. Armo nt ro ut

, 79 5 F.2 d 55 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ), is al so in fo rm at iv e.
The re, we rem an de d a ha be as pe ti ti on ba ck to th e di st ric t co ur t to b e c o n s i de red as

a co m pl ai nt un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 be cau se aft er "re ad in g You ng 's pe ti ti on li be ral ly,

as is req ui red in th is cas e, it is ap pa ren t th at You ng ha s al so rai se d a po te nt ia ll y vi ab le
[E]igh th [A]m en dm en t cl ai m ." Id

. at 56

. Sp en cer's ha be as p e t i t i o n si m il arl y rai se d

po te nt ia l Eig ht h Am en dm en t vi ol at io ns

. As in Y ou ng , th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve

tre at ed th is cas e as a Bive ns act io n as op po se d to di sm is si ng th e pe ti t i o n w i t h o ut

pr ejud ic e.

Fi na ll y , we ap pr ov e th e Sev en th Ci rcu it 's wis do m ou tl in ed in Rob in so n v.
Sh er ro d

, 63 1 F.3 d 83 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Thu s, we th in k it ap pr op ria te to co ns id er th e

act io n th at ul ti m at el y ch al le ng ed "t he fact or du rat io n of [t he pe tit ion er ' s] conf

in em en t in Co lo rad o" ).

-6

-po te nt ia l de tri m en t to ha be as pe ti t io ne rs if di st ric t co ur ts

, su a sp on te

, tra ns fo rm ed

th ei r ha be as pe ti ti on s in to Bive ns or § 19 83 cl ai m s, an d vi ce ve rs a. Se e id

. at 84 1. As

a res ul t, we th in k t h e b e t t e r pr act ic e wil l be fo r di st ric t co ur ts to fir st ob ta in th e

co ns en t of th e pr o se in di vi du al be fo re co nv ert in g t h e i r cl ai m s fro m a ha be as

pr oc eed in g t o a Bive ns act io n.

III. Co nc lu si on

W e rev ers e th e d is tri ct co ur t's di sm is sa l o f Sp en cer's ha be as pe ti ti on be cau se

it se ek s rel ie f on ly fo r a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m an d we rem an d th e cas e to

th e di st ric t co ur t to reo pe n th e m at te r an d gi ve Sp en cer an op po rtu ni ty to pu rs ue hi s
cl ai m as a Bive ns su it if h e so ch oo se s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-