# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 50904 Summary Calendar

**____________ Alexander Isaiah Perez,** 

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Sandra Hijar,** Warden, FCI La Tuna **,** Respondent— Appellee

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:22

- CV

- 324

**______________________________** Before **Smith, Elrod,**  and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Prison officials caught Alexander Perez, federal prisoner # 44217 -013, using a third

- party e- mail communication service that allowed users to mask the identities of their contacts. A prison disciplinary hearing was held, and the discipline hearing officer ( “ DHO ” ) concluded that Perez violated Pro

hib ited Act Code 296. As a consequence, the DHO sanctioned Perez with the loss of 27 days of good

- conduct time, 180 days of commissary privileges,

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 17, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50904 Document: 00516823146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023No. 22

- 50904

2 and 365 days of e

- mail privileges.
Perez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition , raising various challenges to the disciplinary proceeding, which the district court denied. Perez then filed a Rule 59(e) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court likewise denied that motion. Perez now appeals , raising si x arguments : (1) T he district court erred in sua sponte denying the § 2241 petition because it relied on Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases in the United States District Courts ; (2) the district court ’s grant of Perez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis ( “ IFP ” ) demonstrates that it erred in denying the § 2241 petition ; (3) the disciplinary hearing violated Perez’s due process rights ; ( 4 ) the dis

trict court erred in not analyzing the due process claim based on violations by the Bureau o f Prisons (“BOP”) of its disciplinary regulations ; ( 5 ) the BOP’s reading of e

- mail into Code 296 violated the Administrative Procedures Act ; and (6) the district court erred in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. A certificate of appealability is not needed b ecause Perez is proceeding under § 2241

. J effers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). “In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, this court reviews a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo.” Id. This court “may affirm the district court’s denial of relief on a ny ground supported by the record.” Hunter v. Tamez , 622 F.3d 427, 430 (5th Cir. 2010). Addi tion

ally, Perez’s challenge to the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kapordelis v. Myers , 16 F.4th 1195, 1202 (5th Cir. 2021 ).

Perez’s Rule 4 argument is unpersuasive because Rule 1(b) of the r ules
g overning § 2254 cases articulates that these rules may apply to other habeas
corpus petitions as well. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Perez’s argument regard

ing the granting of IFP status fails , as the IFP standard does not encompass a full inquiry into the merits. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. Case: 22-50904 Document: 00516823146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2023No. 22

- 50904

3 1983). Regarding Perez’s due process claim, the record reflects that all three factors articulated in Wolff v. McDonell , 418 U.S. 539 , 563

– 67 (1974), were met, and there was the requisite level of evidence to support the disciplinary action, see Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 45 4

– 5 5 (1985). Perez’s argument that the district court should have analyzed the due process claims in light of the BOP’s failure to follow its hearing regulations is without merit because a prison’s failure to follow its own policies or regula

tions does not violate due process whe re constitutional minima w ere other

wise satisfied. See Brewster v. Dretke , 587 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir. 2009 )

. We also discern no error in the district court’s determination that the inclusion of e

- mail amounted to an interpretation of an exi sting rule , not a substantive rule change

. Finally , the district court did not err when it denied Perez’s Rule 59(e) motion

. See Schiller v. Physicians Res

. Grp

. , Inc. , 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we **AFFIRM** the denial of the § 2241 petition and the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion. Case: 22-50904 Document: 00516823146 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/17/2023