2007 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 8-28-2007 

# S p eight v . Minor 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 . 07-1540

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_2007

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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " S pei ght v . Minor " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 529. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/529NOT 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 o. 07- 1540

________________ KEN NETH EUG ENE SPEI GH T,

A ppel l ant v. J O N A T H A N C . M I N O R , W ar den

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . PA . N o. 06- C V - 01377) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R i char d P. C onaboy

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t27, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , M C K E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed A ugus t28, 2007 )

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM K enneth E ugene Spei ght , a fe der al i nm at e pr es ent l yconfi ned atFC I - M cK ean, P e n n s y l v a n i a , a p p e a l s th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C.Spei ghtdoes notchal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe s anct i ons 1 i mp o s e d f

e l l we l l wi th i n th e BOP Gu i d e l i n e s f o rh i g h - l e v e l o f

f e n s e s s e tf

o r th a t2 8 C. F . R. § 541. 13, t abl es 3 and 4, and thus w er e notexce s s i ve. 2 § 2 2 4 1 in w h ich h e so u g h t to h a v e a d isc ip lin a rya c tio n v a c a ted a n d h is g o o d tim e c re d its a n d p h o n e p riv ileg e s re in sta ted . S p e ig h t ar g u e s th a t h e w a s d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss in connec t i on w i th di s ci pl i narychar ges thatfal s el yacc us ed hi m of a BO P C ode 312 off ens e,

“ in so len c e to w a rd a sta f f m e m b e r,” w h ile h e w a s c o n f in e d a t F C I-A llen w o o d in W h ite D eer , Penns y l vani a. H e as s ert s thatC ouns el orSi m m ons fi l ed the al l egedl yfal s e cha r ge againsthim i n ret al i at i on for Sp ei gh t ’s fi l i ng a ci vil ri gh t s l aw sui tnam i ng fel l ow off i cers , i n c l u d i n g d i s c i p l i n a r yh e a r i n g o f f i c e r( “ DHO” ) Bi t t e n b i n d e r . He c l a i ms th a tDHO B i t t enbi nder , w ho pr es i ded overhi s di s ci pl i naryhear i ng pr om pt ed bySi m m ons ’ s char ge, w as bi as ed aga i ns thi m and fa i l ed t o bas e hi s deci s i on agai ns tSi m m ons upon the gr eat er w ei ghtof the evi dence . A ft err evi ew i ng the pet i t i on and r es pons i ve pl eadi ngs , the M agi s tr at e J udge re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e p e tit io n b e d ism iss e d . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J udge’ s R eportand deni ed § 2241 r el i ef. T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d that“s om e evi dence ” exi s t ed t o s uppor tthe di s ci pl i naryhear i ng offi cer ’ s fi ndi ng of gui l tbas ed on the di s ci pl i naryr eportcompl et ed byC ouns el orSi m m ons . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o hel d that S p e i g h t ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s h o u l d h a v e b e e n b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o Bi v e n s v . S i x Un k n o wn N amed A gent s , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) . Spei ghtt i m el yappea l ed. 1 W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the di s m i s s al of Spei ght ’ s pet i t i on pur s uantt o 283

U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal co n clus ion s. S ee 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 ). Spei ghtar gues vi gor ous l ythatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i der w hetherdis ci pli narysanct i on s i m po sed i n ret al i at i on for hi s having ex erci sed his F i rs t A m e n d m e n t rig h t o f

a c c e ss to th e c o u rts v io late s d u e p ro c e ss . T h e D istric t C o u rt, vi ew i ng the i s s ue as a r et al i at i on cl ai m , hel d thati tw as notcogni zabl e under§ 2241. C l ai m s br oughtunder§ 2241 m us tchal l enge the exe cut i on of a s ent ence , r ather than i t s val i dity . S ee C oad yv. V aug hn , 25 1 F . 3d 48 0, 48 5 (3d C i r. 20 01 ). T he p reci se m e a n in g o f

th e ter m “ e x e c u tio n o f

a se n ten c e ” h a s n o t b e e n d e ter m in e d . A s w e n o ted in W o o d a l l v . F e d e r a l Bu r e a u o f P r i s o n s , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) , th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n N el s on v. C ampbel l , 541 U . S. 637 ( 2004) , and Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U . S. 475 ( 1973) , det erm i ned that§ 1983 pr ovi des no r emedyi n “condi t i ons of confi nement ” ca s es w her e the cl ai m s as s ert ed l i e “a tthe cor e of ha beas . ” I d. ( al s o ci t i ng L eam er v. F auv er, 28 8 F . 3d 53 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 )) . B ut the S up rem e C ou rtdid not address w hen a pr i s oneri s pr ecl uded fr om fi l i ng a habe as pet i t i on. W oodal l , at242. W e q u e stio n w h e th e r a re talia tio n c laim is c o g n iza b le u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . A lth o u g h it i s conce i vabl e that , i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s , evi dence of r et al i at orym ot i ve on the partof a char gi ng offi cerand a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng offi cerm i ghtbe r el evantt o the ques t i on of wh e th e ra p a r t i c u l a rd i s c i p l i n a r ya d j u d i c a t i o n v i o l a t e d d u e p r o c e s s p u r s u a n tt o § 2 2 4 1 , we need notdeci de the i s s ue i n Spei ght ’ s cas e. A s s um i ng ar guendo thatSpei ght ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m i s cogni zabl e under§ 2241, he fa i l ed t o pr oper l yexhaus tthe i s s ue thr ough the4

app ropri at e pri son ch ann el s. A fede r al pr i s onerm us texhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e pet i t i oni ng for a w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o § 2241. M os cat o v. Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 98 F. 3d 757, 760 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . Pr operexhaus t i on r equi r es thata pet i t i oneras s ertan i s s ue orcl ai m ateveryadmi ni s tr at i ve l evel . I f a pe t i t i onerfai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve rem edies du e t o a p rocedu ral defa ult , and the d efau l trenders the ad m i nis trat i ve p rocess unavai l abl e t o hi m , r evi ew of hi s § 2241 cl ai m i s barr ed unl es s he ca n s how caus e and pr ej udi ce. I d. at761. S p eigh t’ s § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n all eg es th at C o u n selo r S im m o n s k n ew o f S p eigh t’ s p e n d in g c iv il righ ts s u it ag a in st o th e r o f f ice rs a t F C I-A llen w o o d . A c c o rd in g to S p e ig h t, S im m o n s re talia ted b yd e lib e ra telyf a ili n g to re sp o n d to S p e ig h t’s in f o rm a l co m p lain ts aboutthe l os s of hi s ey egl as s es and l ack of m edi cal tr eatm entfori nj ur i es s us t ai ned fr om an u n ex p lai n ed fa ll in M arc h 2 0 0 5 . S p eigh t spo k e w ith a W ard en tw ice a b o u t Sim m o n s’s fai l ur e t o r es pond t o hi m . A ft erSpei ght ’ s s econd t al k w i th the W ar den i n M ay2005, S im m o n s h ad a h ea ted c o n v ersa ti o n w ith S p eigh t ath is cell , p rom p ti n g S p eigh ts t o retort “see y ou i n co urt . ” T hat s am e day , S i m m on s pres sed dis ci pli narycharges against S peight , cl ai m i ng that he hu rl ed a raci al sl ur atS i m m on s. A l though t he under l y i ng fac t s of the r et al i at i on cl ai m w er e know n t o Spei ghtatt he tim e th a t th e d isc ip lin a ryc h a rg e s w e re b ro u g h t in M a y2 0 0 5 , h e d id n o t as se rt th e c laim i n hi s w r i t t en r es pons e t o t he di s ci pl i narychar ge, nordi d he t es t i fyt o the fa ct s under l y i ng the r et al i at i on cl ai m atthe di s ci pl i naryhear i ng. Spei ght s di d notr ai s e r et al i at i on as anB e c a u se th e c laim is p ro c e d u ra llyd e f a u lted , w e d o n o t re a c h th e a rg u m e n ts 2 S p e i g h tr a i s e s i n h i s Re p l ya d d r e s s i n g th e me r i t s o f th e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. 5 i s s ue i n hi s r egi onal appea l . H e ment i oned r et al i at i on forthe fi r s tt i m e atthe fi nal s t age of hi s admi ni s tr at i ve appe al . B eca us e he f ai l ed t o r ai s e the r et al i at i on cl ai m ateveryl evel of the admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s , he has notpr oper l yexhaus t ed the cl ai m for§ 2241 purpos es . M or eover , the B O P adm i ni s tr at i ve pr oces s i s no l ongeravai l abl e t o hi m , and thus he i s barr ed fr om r ai s i ng the cl ai m unl es s he ca n s how caus e and pr ej udi ce. Spei ght does notcl ai m thatthe pr i s on pr event ed hi m fr om r ai s i ng the r et al i at i on i s s ue atthe d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g o r o n a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re talia tio n c laim w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed as pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. 2 W e tu rn to S p e ig h t’s b ias a n d w e ig h t-o f -th e -e v id e n c e c laim s, w h ich a re p ro p e rly br oughti n a § 2241 habe as corpus pet i t i on. Speci fi cal l y , Spei ghtar gues on appea l that D H O B itt e n b in d e r la c k e d im p a rtialityb e c a u se h e w a s a n a m e d d e f e n d a n t in a c iv il righ ts act i on Spei ght s fi l ed. H e al s o cl ai m s thatB i t t enbi nderw r ongl yr el i ed on C ouns el or Si m m ons ’ s di s ci pl i naryr eportt o fi nd hi m gui l tyof m i s conductand w r ongl ydi s r egar ded test im o n yfro m tw o inm ates o n S p eigh t’ s b eh alf. T h e inm ate w itn esse s w ere S p eigh t’ s c e llm a te, P e tty Jo h n , w h o w a s in th e c e ll at th e tim e th a t S p e ig h t an d S im m o n s h a d th e ir a rg u m e n t, a n d in m a te S te w a rd , w h o w a s h o u s e d in a c e ll lo c a te d d o w n th e ro w . A ccor di ng t o Spei ght , Pet ty J ohn and St ew ar d t es t i fi ed thatSpei ghtdi d notut t erthe r aci al s l urthatSi m m ons al l eged. A s a p ri so n er f

ac ing a d ep ri v ati o n o f a li b ertyinterest i n a p ri so n d isci p li n arySpei ghtdoes notm ake a nycl ai m s as t o the otherpr ocedur al s afe guar ds under 3 W ol ff: ( 1) advanc e w r i t t en not i ce of the cha r ges and under l y i ng evi dence ; ( 2) an 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 (to th e e x ten t co m p a tib le w ith th e n e e d s o f

th e p riso n ); (3 ) a id f

ro m a f e llo w in m a te o r sta f

f re p re se n tativ e , if i nm at e cha r ged w as i l l i t er at e ori f the i s s ues w er e compl ex; and ( 4) a w r i t t en s t at ementby the fa ct fi nder s des cr i bi ng the evi dence r el i ed on and the r eas ons fordi s ci pl i naryact i on t aken. 6 hear i ng, Spei ghti s ent i t l ed t o pr ocedur es s uffi ci entt o ens ur e thathi s i nt er es ti n hi s good tim e c re d its w a s n o t a rb itr a ri ly ab ro g a te d . See W ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 557 (19 7 4 ). S pecifi cal l y , he h ad to be aff orded c ert ai n m i nim al proced ural prot ect i on s, i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, an i m part i al tr i bunal . See i d. at 56 3 -72 . In a d d it ion , to co m p o rt 3 w i th the r equi r ement s of due pr oces s , the dec i s i on of the di s ci pl i naryhear i ng offi cerhad t o be s uppor t ed by“s om e evi dence . ” See Super i nt endentv. H i l l , 472 U . S. 445, 454 ( 1985) . T he “s om e evi dence ” s t andar d does 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 tyof w i tnes s es , orw ei ghi ng of the evi dence . I d. at455- 456. “The r el evantques t i on i s w hetherther e i s anyevi dence i n the r ecor d that coul d s uppor tthe conc l us i on r eac hed bythe di s ci pl i naryboar d. ” I d. at456. A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyn o ted , the d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g re c o rd , sp e c if ica lly the cha r gi ng offi cer ’ s r eport , al though m eage r , cons t i tut es s om e evi dence s uppor t i ng t he D H O ’ s deci s i on i n Spei ght ’ s cas e. W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthateven though D H O B ittenb ind er w as n am ed in o n e o f S p eigh t’ s law su it s, h e d id n o t l ac k the n ec essa ry i m part i al i tyt o pr es i de overSpei ght ’ s di s ci pl i naryhear i ng i n thi s m att er . “[T] he r equi r ementof an i m part i al tr i bunal pr ohi bi t s onl ythos e off i ci al s w ho have a di r ect per s onal orot herw i s e s ubs t ant i al i nvol vement , s uch as m aj orpart i ci pat i on i n aj udgm ent al ordeci s i on- m aki ng r ol e, i n the ci r cumst ance s under l y i ng the cha r ge. ”

M ey er s v. A l l dr edge, 492 F. 2d 296, 306 ( 3d C i r . 1974) ; s ee a l s o R hodes v. R obi ns on, 612 F. 2d 766, 773 ( 3d C i r . 1979) . I f a pr i s onercoul d di s qual i fyhear i ng offi cer s thr ough in stitu tin g law su its a g a in st th e m , a p riso n ’s a b ili tyto c o n d u c t d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g s w o u ld b e s e ri o u s ly co m p ro m is e d . S e e R e d d in g v . F a ir n a n , 7 1 7 F .2 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 3 (7 C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). th H er e, ther e i s no r ecor d evi dence thatB i t t enbi nderhad anyper s onal i nvol vementi n t he ci r cumst ance s under l y i ng Spei ght ’ s char ge. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt ju d g m e n t.