IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

FRANK T. STEFFENSEN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARION FEATHER, 

Respondent. 

Frank T. Steffensen, 12436-006 

Sheridan Federal Prison Camp 

P.O. Box 6000 

Sheridan, OR 97378 

Petitioner, Pro Se 

Billy J. Williams 

Acting United States Attorney 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01377-MO 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Natalie Wight, Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 10
MOSMAN, District Judge. 

Petitioner, an inmate at FCI-Sheridan, brings this habeas 

corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the validity 

of an April 8, 2015 disciplinary hearing. Because that hearing did 

not afford petitioner the procedural protections he is guaranteed, 

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) is granted. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner is currently serving a 134-month sentence for 

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and (b) (1) (B). While serving this sentence, 

Facility Manager D. Childress searched petitioner's cell looking 

for contraband. The search resulted in an Incident Report 

containing the following account by Childress: 

On March 18, 2015, at approximately 8:38 AM, I 

conducted a cell search of bunk 11 located in 

Unit 6, Wing 8. During the search, I 

discovered a razor blade taped up inside of 

[petitioner's) locker. I called [Lieutenant 

J. Skowronek) and he took possession of the 

blade. 

Declaration of Daniel Cortez (#10), Att. 3, p. 1. 

As a result of this Incident Report, petitioner was charged 

with being an inmate in possession of a weapon. On March 20, 2015, 

petitioner's case proceeded to the Unit Disciplinary Committee 

("UDC") where he did not request any witnesses and commented only 

that he "had no clue [the razor blade) was there." Id. Based on 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 10
the seriousness of the offense, the UDC referred the matter to 

Disciplinary Hearings Officer ("DHO") Daniel Cortez. Id. 

On April 8, 2015, petitioner proceeded to his hearing with the 

DHO. Although the DHO indicated on the face of his report that 

petitioner requested a staff representative, he failed to identify 

that staff representative and, instead, simply stated that such 

information was not applicable. Cortez Declaration (#10), Att. 4, 

p. 1. However, in the written portion of the report, the DHO 

stated that "Inmate Steffensen selected Correctional Counselor D. 

Dannelley as his Staff Representative. Ms. Dannelley appeared at 

the hearing and stated; 'He has never been a problem. He told me 

where it was found he would not have normally checked.'" Id at 2. 

According to petitioner, he requested both Childress and 

Skowronek as witnesses at his DHO hearing to demonstrate he lacked 

the intent required to warrant a conviction for possession of a 

weapon. Specifically, he contends that if called, Childress would 

have stated that it was unlikely petitioner knew the razor blade 

was there, and that Skowronek told petitioner that he did not agree 

with the charge. Neither Childress nor Skowronek appeared as 

witnesses during the DHO hearing. Although the DHO specifically 

indicated in his report that petitioner requested witnesses, he 

later indicated in the same report that petitioner failed to 

produce any evidence or witnesses to dispute the charge. 

Declaration (#10), Att. 4, p. 2. 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Cortez 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 10
Petitioner proceeded to offer the following statement during 

the DHO hearing, including a reference to what Childress might have 

said if asked: 

I didn't put that there. I have been there 

for ten months. I cleaned it out but I didn't 

check every nook and cranny. If you ask Mr. 

Childress he would say that it was in a spot 

where I couldn't have seen it. 

Cortez Declaration (#10), Att. 4, p. 2. 

The DHO concluded that petitioner was guilty of the charged 

infraction, relying upon: (1) the written account of Childress 

contained in the March 18 Incident Report; (2) the fact that 

petitioner declined to provide a statement to Skowronek; 

(3) petitioner's statement to the UDC that he had no clue the razor 

was there; and (4) petitioner's statement during the DHO hearing. 

The DHO provided the following rationale for his decision: 

Id at 2. 

Facilities Manager D. Childress indicates in 

his written statement while he was conducting 

a search of the area of inmate Steffensen, a 

razor blade was found taped to the inside of 

the locker. Inmate Steffensen denied 

possession of the items during the UDC Review 

and DHO hearing. Despite the denial of inmate 

Steffensen, the DHO finds inmate Steffensen 

did not provide any evidence or witnesses to 

dispute the charge. The DHO weighed the 

statement of Staff Representative Dannelley, 

however did not find the statement to outweigh 

the statement of the reporting officer. The 

DHO finds the greater weight of the evidence 

presented indicates inmate Steffensen 

committed the prohibited act of Possession of 

a Weapon. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 10
As a result of the guilty determination, the DHO disallowed 

seven days of good conduct time and imposed seven days of 

disciplinary segregation, with suspension of the latter sanction 

pending 180 days of clear conduct. Id at 3. Petitioner also 

asserts that this conviction prevents him from obtaining the oneyear sentence reduction that accompanies successful completion of 

the residential drug abuse treatment program. 

On April 18, 2015, petitioner took an administrative appeal 

wherein he alleged, in part: 

"Needed witnesses requested would have 

produced evidence in my favor. There was no 

use, alteration, imputed knowledge, or intent, 

and no evidence that it was anything other 

than the cartridge issued at commissary which 

would be 'Anything Not Authorized' after May 

6, 2015. A finding of guilty without further 

description and failure to call witnesses 

requested violates Due process, Policy, and 

Equal Protection. This action is arbitrary." 

Cortez Affidavit, Att. 5, p. 1 (bold in original). 

On May 5, 2015, Regional Director Juan D. Castillo rejected 

the administrative appeal. Without explaining or referring to the 

contradictions in the DHO' s report pertaining to petitioner's 

apparent desire to call witnesses, the Regional Director concluded 

that petitioner was afforded the opportunity to call witnesses but 

waived that right. Id at 2. He also concluded that the greater 

weight of the evidence supported a finding of guilty, noting that 

"[e]vidence weighed against you included the account of the 

reporting officer and the statements you presented. Such 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 10
evidence supports the fact staff found an altered razor blade 

inside of your locker." Id. Although petitioner appealed the 

Regional Director's decision, he claims he did not receive a 

response prior to filing this action. 1 

On July 23, 2015, petitioner filed this 28 U.S. C. § 2241 

habeas corpus action in which he alleges that the DHO's decision 

violates: (1) his right to procedural due process where he was not 

permitted to call witnesses; (2) his right to substantive due 

process where there was no evidence in the record that he had 

anything other than a standard razor cartridge in his locker; and 

(3) his right to equal protection where all inmates are allowed to 

have razor blades in their lockers, but only he was punished for 

that conduct. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Procedural Due Process 

An inmate subject to a prison disciplinary hearing is entitled 

to certain procedural protections: ( 1) written notice of the 

charges against him; (2) he must receive notice of the charges at 

least 24 hours before his hearing; (3) a written statement by a 

factfinder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for 

disciplinary action; and (4) an opportunity to call witnesses and 

present documentary evidence in his defense when allowing him to do 

The Government does not assert that the Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 10
so "will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or 

correctional goals.'' Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 

(1974). 

The Government claims that it satisfied Wolff's requirements 

where it offered petitioner the ability to present witness 

testimony, but he declined. In his Declaration, the OHO states 

that "[t]he front page of my report indicates Steffensen requested 

witnesses but that is a typographical error. No witnesses were 

requested." Cortez Declaration (#10) , 'll3. He further asserts, 

"although the cover page of my report indicates he requested 

witnesses, that box was erroneously checked and was a clerical 

error. My report indicates Steffensen did not wish to call any 

witnesses, and I do not recall anyone asking for witnesses." Id 

at 'll4. Similarly, petitioner's staff representative states that, 

to the best of her recollection, petitioner did not ask for any 

witnesses. Declaration of Dawn Dannelley (#16), 'll2. 

Although the OHO indicates that his report merely contains a 

clerical error, the first page is not the only instance in his 

Report where he references petitioner's desire for witness 

testimony. The report also recounts petitioner's statement to the 

OHO to include the following: "If you ask Mr. Childress he would 

say that it was in a spot where I couldn't have seen it." Cortez 

Declaration (#10), Att. 4, p. 2. Thus, not only does the OHO 

Report indicate that petitioner requested witnesses, but it also 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 7 of 10
reveals that petitioner thought he had favorable witness testimony 

available to him. As such, the DHO' s report suggests that 

petitioner did, in fact, wish to call witnesses at his hearing 

despite the DHO's contrary position as stated in his Declaration. 

Accordingly, the court concludes that petitioner was not afforded 

his due process right to call witnesses at his hearing such that a 

new hearing is required. 

II. Substantive Due Process 

Petitioner next asserts that the DHO' s finding of guilt 

violates his right to due process because there was no evidence to 

support the charge. In Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 

(1985), the Supreme Court held that due process during a prison 

disciplinary hearing requires that "some evidence" exist to support 

the findings made during such a hearing. Id at 455. The "some 

evidence" standard is met where "there is any evidence in the 

record that could support the conclusion reached by the 

disciplinary board." Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56. Petitioner will 

prevail if the record in this case is ''so devoid of evidence that 

the findings of the . . board were without support or otherwise 

arbitrary." Id at 457. 

In his Declaration, the DHO addresses this issue: 

Although it was not raised during the 

disciplinary process, I have been advised 

Steffensen claims all inmates have razors and 

it is not a weapon. Inmates at FCI Sheridan 

are permitted to have trimmers and razor 

blades but they must be in a cartridge or 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 8 of 10
other sort of device. The i tern found in 

Steffensen's locker was a single blade that 

was not in a cartridge or device and, 

therefore, was considered a weapon. 

Additionally, during the time frame of this 

incident report, staff members were 

particularly vigilant of unauthorized razor 

blades and extensive searches were being 

conducted as a result of a serious assault, 

with a razor blade, wherein two staff members 

were injured. 

Cortez Declaration (#10), ~5. 

It is somewhat difficult to adjudicate this claim insofar as: 

(1) none of the documents in the record leading up to petitioner's 

UDC and DHO hearings, including Childress' account in the Incident 

Report, show that prison personnel specifically charged petitioner 

with possession of an altered razor blade; (2) despite this fact, 

petitioner did not argue to either the UDC or the DHO that he was 

not in possession of a weapon because the razor blade was 

unaltered; and (3) when petitioner raised the alteration issue for 

the first time during his administrative appeal, the Regional 

Director simply stated that Childress' account and petitioner's own 

statements supported the charge. The court need not resolve the 

substantive due process issue, however, because petitioner is 

entitled to a new hearing based upon the procedural due process 

violation discussed above. During petitioner's new hearing, he 

will be able to call witnesses and challenge the categorization (or 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 9 of 10
lack thereof) of the razor blade as sufficiently altered so as to 

constitute a weapon. 2 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons identified above, the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (#1) is granted. Should Bureau of Prisons officials 

decline to provide petitioner with a new disciplinary hearing 

within 30 days that satisfies the requirements of due process, 

respondent shall expunge the disciplinary conviction at issue in 

this case and recalculate petitioner's sentence accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERE~ 

DATED this ~ day 

United States District Judge 

2 For the same reasons, the court need not address the 

equal protection claim petitioner raises which, like his 

substantive due process claim, is predicated upon his assertion 

that the razor blade taped inside his locker was unaltered. 

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01377-MO Document 18 Filed 01/07/16 Page 10 of 10