Court Opinion

ID: 9409397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 00:00:34.766251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:50.192377
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50904         Document: 00516823146             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 22-50904                                   July 17, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   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-
   hibited 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.
Case: 22-50904      Document: 00516823146          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50904

   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 six arguments: (1) The 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 of 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 because Perez is proceeding
   under § 2241. Jeffers 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 any ground supported by
   the record.” Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427, 430 (5th Cir. 2010). Addition-
   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 rules
   governing § 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.

                                             2
Case: 22-50904        Document: 00516823146          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                      No. 22-50904

   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, 454–55
   (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 where constitutional minima were 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 existing 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.

                                               3