2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-10-2009 

# James V oid v . W arde n F or t D ix F C I P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2887

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J ame s V o id v . W ar de n F or t Dix F C I " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 684. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/6841 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 08- 2887 & 08- 3563

___________ J AM E S VOI D, A ppel l ant v . W ARDEN F ORT DI X FC I

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- 01252) Di s t r i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n é e M a r i e Bu mb

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember9, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : Sept ember10, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J ames V oi d, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the or derof the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yd e n y in g h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit2

of habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n w hi ch he c hal l enged hi s pr i s on d is c ip lin a ry h e a ri n g a n d re s u ltin g s a n c tio n s . F o r t h e f o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m . V oi d i s curr ent l yconfi ned i n t he Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atFor tD i x, N ew Je rse y(F C I-F o rt D ix ). O n Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , V o id w a s c a lled to th e S e c u rityO f f ice to pr ovi de a ur i ne s ampl e fordrug t es t i ng. H e w as gi ven tw o hour s t o pr ovi de the ur i ne s ampl e. V oi d di d notur i nat e unt i l fi ft een mi nut es pas tthe tw o- hourdeadl i ne. T he offi cerr efus ed the ur i ne s ampl e and s erved V oi d w i t h I nci dentR epor tN o. 1618908, char gi ng hi m w i t h r efus i ng t o pr ovi de a ur i ne s ampl e i n vi ol at i on of D i s ci pl i naryC ode Sect i on 110. V oi d r ece i ved a w r i t t en not i ce of hi s r i ght s on J ul y12, 2007. T he i nci dent r epor tw as r efe r r ed t o pr i s on D i s ci pl i naryH ear i ng O ffi cerB oy ce ( “D H O ”) , w ho hel d a h e a rin g o n Ju ly1 7 , 2 0 0 7 . A t th e h e a rin g , V o id c o n f irm e d th a t h e u n d e rsto o d h is rig h ts and he de cl i ned the as s i s t ance of a s t aff r epr es ent at i ve. H e deni ed the cha r ge, expl ai ni ng that“I coul d notpr ovi de the s ampl e w i t h i n tw o hour s . I di d gi ve a s ampl e fi ft een m inu tes p ast th e ti m e li m it , b u t th eyw o u ld n o t t ak e it . I ha d a u ri n e sa m p le i n O ctob er, 2006. I have doc um ent ed evi dence t hatI had a pr evi ous i nj urythatpr ohi bi t ed me fr om u rin a tin g , b u t itis n o t in m yf ile.” V o id d id n o t p re se n t an yw itn e ss e s o r o th e r e v id e n c e in s uppor tof hi s cas e. Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, the D H O i s s ued a w r i t t en dec i s i on fi ndi ng V oi d gui l tyof the cha r ged off ens e. T he D H O s ubs equent l yi m pos ed the fol l ow i ng san cti o n s: disall o w an ce o f f o rtyd ay s o f g o o d co n d u ct t im e; si x tyd ay s o f d isci p li n ary segregat i on ; and a 18 0-dayl oss of v i si t i ng pri vil eges.W ith an ex ce p ti o n n o ted b elow , V o id ex h au sted h is ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies b ef o re 1 i ni t i at i ng t he pr es entact i on. 3 O n M ar ch 13, 2008, V oi d fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, al l egi ng t hathi s due pr oces s r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed dur i ng the di s ci pl i narypr oces s . Speci fi cal l y , V oi d cl ai m ed that : ( 1) the cha r gi ng offi cer 1 di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m beca us e he w as bl ack bynotacc ept i ng hi s ur i ne; ( 2) the char gi ng offi cerfai l ed t o fol l ow B O P Progr am S t at ement6060. 08 ( “U r i ne Sur vei l l ance and N ar cot i c I dent i fi cat i on”) , w hi ch al l ow s s t aff t o ext end the tw o- hourl i m i ti f w arr ant ed bys peci fi c s i tuat i ons ; ( 3) contr aryt o t he fi ndi ng of the R egi onal D i r ect or , he di d i n fac t a d v ise th e o f

f ice r o n Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , tha t h e h a d a m e d ica l p ro b lem th a t m a d e it d if f icu lt forhi m t o ur i nat e; ( 4) and hi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e s er i ous l yvi ol at ed w hen he w as p u n ish e d w ith th e lo ss o f f o rtyd a y s in g o o d tim e c re d its “ f o r b e in g f

if tee n m in u tes late w i th a ur i ne s ampl e. ” ( M emora ndum i n s uppor tof § 2241 pet i t i on, at4) . B yor der ent er ed M ay30, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts um m ar i l ydi s m i s ed the pet i t i on. V oi d fi l ed a m ot i on forr econs i der at i on t o w hi ch he a t t ache d a pr i s on m edi cal r ecor d r epor tdat ed J une 4 , 2 0 0 8 , ind ica tin g th a t h e h a d h a d a b io p syo f h is p ro sta te in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , an d th a t h is p rov isi o n al diag n o sis on Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 8 , w as “ p rostati c o b stru cti o n . ” T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed r econs i der at i on, rul i ng t hatt he r ece nt l yacqui r ed medi cal r ecor d di d notal t ert he cour t ’ s opi ni on t hatV oi d w as aff or ded al l the pr oces s he w as due underW ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 556 ( 1974) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatV oi d had admi t t edW h ile th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se p ro tec ts a g a in st th e re v o c a tio n o f g o o d -tim e c re d it, it 2 does notpr ovi de the s ame l evel of pr ot ect i on agai ns tthe otherform s of di s ci pl i ne that V o id re c e iv e d . S e e T o rre s v . F a u v e r, 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 4 1 , 1 5 0 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c iti n g S a n d in v . C o n n er, 51 5 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 6 (19 9 5 )). 4 at th e h ea ri n g that h is urine s am p le w as late a n d that h is r ec o rd c o n tai n ed n o d o cu m en tary evidence o f his m edical con dit i on . V oid now app eal s fr om the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders . W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 (a). W e r evi ew a D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of habe as corpus r el i ef de novo. M ar s hal l v. H endr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 50 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fin d ing s fo r clear e rror. S ee , e.g., R u g g iano v . R eish , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that“pr i s on di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs ar e notpartof a c r i m i nal pr os ecut i on and the ful l panopl yof r i ght s due a de fenda nti n s uch pr ocee di ngs does not appl y . ” W ol ff, 418 U . S. at556. T he Supr eme C our thas , how ever , r ecogni zed a s etof m i ni m um pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons t hatm us tappl yt o pr i s on di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs w hen, as i n thi s cas e, a pr i s oner ’ s good- t i m e cr edi ti s ats t ake. I d. Speci fi cal l y , w hen good- 2 t i m e cr edi ti s ats t ake, a pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed t o: ( 1) advanc e w r i t t en not i ce of the di s ci pl i narychar ges ; ( 2) an oppor tuni t y , w hen cons i s t entw i t h i ns t i tut i onal s afe t yor corr ect i onal goal s , t o cal l w i t nes s es and pr es entdocument aryevi dence i n hi s defe ns e; and ( 3) a w r i t t en s t at ementbyt he fa ct fi nderof the evi dence r el i ed on and the r eas ons fort he di s ci pl i naryact i on. I d. at563- 67. “R evoca t i on of good t i m e does notcomportw i t h the m i ni m um r equi r ement s of pr ocedur al due pr oces s unl es s the fi ndi ngs of the pr i s on5

dis ci pli narybo ard ar e supp ort ed b ysom e evidence in the record. ” S up eri ntenden t , M ass. C o rr . In s t. v . H ill, 4 7 2 U .S . 4 4 5 , 4 5 4 (1 9 8 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he “s om e evi dence ” s t andar d i s a qui t e def er ent i al one. I tdoes notr equi r e exa m i nat i on of the ent i r e r ecor d, i ndepende ntas s es s m entof the cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es orthe w ei ghi ng of evi dence . I d. at455- 56. T he courtneed onl ycons i derw hetherther e w as any evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatcoul d s uppor tthe conc l us i on r eac hed bythe pr i s on di s ci pl i narydeci s i onm aker . I d. U po n revi ew , w e agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtthat V oid r ecei ved al l the p rocess he w as due dur i ng t he di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatV oi d w as gi ven 24 hour s ’ not i ce of

t he cha r ges agai ns thi m i n acc or dance w i t h 28 C . F. R . § 541. 17( a) ; t hat h e w a s p ro v id e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto c a ll w itn e ss e s a n d p re se n t d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e in hi s defe ns e; and thathe w as i s s ued a w r i t t en dec i s i on s et t i ng for t h t he evi dence r el i ed on, a n d re a s o n s f

o r, t h e d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n . S e e W o lf f , 4 1 8 U .S . a t 5 6 3 -6 7 . Fur t herm or e, al t hough t he evi dence of w i l l ful nes s w as s par e and the pena l t yr ather s ever e undert he ci r cumst ance s , w e ar e cons t r ai ned t o concl ude thatthe D H O ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e s uppor t ed by“s om e” e vi dence i n t he r ecor d. T he D H O bas ed the gui l t yfi ndi ng on th e c h a rg in g o f

f ice r’s re p o rt a n d o n V o id ’s a d m iss io n th a t h e d id n o t p ro v id e a sa m p le w i th the tw o hourdeadl i ne, t hathe pr ovi ded one f i ft een mi nut es l at er , and thatthe off i cer w o u ld n o t t ak e it , as c o rrob o rati n g the o ff icer’s rep o rt . W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtV oi d fai l ed t o pr oper l yexhaus thi s r ace - bas ed di s ci pl i narycl ai m thr ough t he 3 appr opr i at e pr i s on channe l s . A fede r al pr i s onerm us texhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es befor e pet i t i oni ng fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o § 2241. M os cat o v. Feder al B u re a u o f

P riso n s, 9 8 F .3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). P ro p e r e x h a u stio n re q u ire s th a t a p e tit io n e r a ss e rt a n iss u e o r c laim a t ev e rya d m in istra tiv e lev e l. Id . at 7 6 1 . H e re , V o id di d notr ai s e the i s s ue of the cha r gi ng offi cer ’ s al l eged r ace - bas ed di s cr i m i nat orybehavi or in h is a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a ls a n d h e w o u ld b e f o re c lo se d f

ro m d o in g so n o w . H e n c e , h is cl ai m w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. 6 thatthi s evi dence m eet s t he mi ni m al r equi r ement s i m pos ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. 3 See H i l l , 472 U . S. at454. A s forV oi d’ s cont ent i on t hatthe pr i s on fai l ed t o fol l ow B O P Progr am S t at ement 6060. 08 ( “U r i ne Sur vei l l ance and N ar cot i c I dent i fi cat i on”) , the B O P Progr am S t at ement perm i t s ext ens i ons of t i m e t o pr ovi de a ur i ne s ampl e i n s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, w hen the i nm at e has a document ed medi cal condi t i on. H er e, ther e w as no document at i on of V oi d’ s m edi cal condi t i on i n hi s pr i s on r ecor d atthe t i m e he w as as ked t o gi ve a ur i ne s ampl e oratt he t i m e of hi s di s ci pl i naryhear i ng. T he r ecor d does not s u p p o rt V o id ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e to ld th e c h a rg in g o f f ic e r a b o u t h is m e d ic a l c o n d itio n . T h e R e g io n a l D ire c to r n o ted th a t th e re w a s n o in d ica tio n in th e h e a rin g re c o rd th a t V o id t ol d the cha r gi ng offi cerof hi s m edi cal condi t i on. ( See A ppeal R es pons e of Regi onal D ire c to r D o d rill, a t 2 .). In h is C e n tra l O f f ice A d m in istra tiv e R e m e d yA p p e a l, V o id c laim e d o n lyth a t “h e re q u e ste d to b e p lac e d in a se c u re , d ryro o m u n til h is n e rv e s c a lm dow n enough t o ur i nat e. ” ( See V oi d’ s A dm i ni s t r at i ve A ppeal dat ed O ct ober23, 2007, at 1 ).7

T h e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd en ied V o id’s m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n . S ee M ax ’s Seafood Café v. Q ui nt er os , 176 F. 3d 669, 673 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( abus e of di s cr et i on stan d ard ). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng V oi d’ s pet i t i on for w ri tof h abeas co rpus.