Court Opinion

ID: 9374910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 17:00:29.870974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:54.110696
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467      Date Filed: 02/24/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 24, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  ANTHONY H. LETT,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 22-1124
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-03212-RMR)
  MR. LOVETT, Warden,                                         (D. Colo.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Anthony Lett, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his prison disciplinary

 conviction for possessing a dangerous weapon in federal prison. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. We also dismiss Mr. Lett’s appeal of

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
       1
        We construe Mr. Lett’s pro se filings liberally. See Childers v. Crow, 1 F.4th
 792, 798 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2718 (2022).
Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023       Page: 2

 the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration for lack of appellate

 jurisdiction.

                                     I. Background

        A prison guard saw Mr. Lett hand a “dark brown” “shaft shaped item” to

 another prisoner, Stanley Walker. R. at 69. The guard saw Mr. Walker “place[] the

 object into his right sock.” Id. The guard searched Mr. Walker and found an

 improvised knife. “The weapon was metal[,] approximately 7.5 inches long[,] and

 sharpened to a point with a dark brown bed sheet ripped into strips to wrap one end

 so it could be used as a handle. A piece of cardboard was used to sheath the

 sharpened end.” Id.

        Prison officials later served Mr. Lett with an incident report charging him with

 possessing a dangerous weapon and aiding in destroying or disposing of the weapon.

 They also notified him of his rights in the pending disciplinary proceeding, which

 included access to a staff representative to help him with his case and the right to

 present evidence. Mr. Lett requested a staff representative, and prison officials

 granted this request.

        At the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Lett said he “had no knowledge of the

 weapon.” R. at 13. He called no witnesses and did not submit documentary or video

 evidence in support of his defense. His staff representative told the hearing officer

 Mr. Lett “did not know what a staff rep was for and he requested no video to be

 viewed.” Id. The hearing officer considered these statements, the guard’s statement,

 a photograph of the shank, and Mr. Lett’s failure to make a statement of defense

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467        Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 3

 earlier in the investigation. The hearing officer concluded “the greater weight of the

 evidence” supported the possession charge. R. at 15. He sanctioned Mr. Lett by

 imposing 50 disciplinary segregation days and revoking 41 days of good conduct

 time credit and six months of commissary privileges.

       After unsuccessfully appealing his disciplinary conviction through

 administrative channels, Mr. Lett filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition in the district

 court. The district court construed his § 2241 petition as “specifically challeng[ing]

 only the sufficiency of the evidence” supporting the disciplinary conviction. R. at

 88. The district court evaluated the sufficiency claim according to the “some

 evidence” standard—i.e., “whether there is any evidence in the record that could

 support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board,” Superintendent, Mass.

 Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455–56 (1985)—and determined the evidence

 considered by the hearing officer was sufficient to support Mr. Lett’s disciplinary

 conviction. To the extent Mr. Lett was arguing that other evidence the hearing

 officer failed to consider, such as Mr. Walker’s testimony or video surveillance

 footage, might have produced a different outcome, the district court rejected that

 argument because the record did not show Mr. Lett had asked the hearing officer to

 review anything beyond what had been considered. The district court also found

 unavailing any due process claim based on an argument that Mr. Lett had been

 prevented from presenting video evidence of the incident. According to the district

 court, Mr. Lett did “not allege that he asked the [hearing officer] to view the video

 evidence and he fail[ed] to explain why he did not tell the [hearing officer] that his

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467        Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 4

 staff representative had failed to obtain video evidence he had requested.” R. at 91.

 On April 1, 2022, the district court denied the § 2241 petition on the merits and

 entered a final judgment that same day.

       On April 15, 2022, Mr. Lett filed pro se a document titled “Petition for

 Reconsideration on the Alternative Petition Giving Notice of Appeal ‘In[]forma

 Pauper[i]s.’” R. at 93 (capitalization normalized). In this filing, Mr. Lett sought

 reconsideration of the district court’s § 2241 denial order under Federal Rules of

 Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). He argued the district court should have granted his

 petition because his staff representative’s role “equate[d] to that of a court appointed

 counsel in a court proceeding,” R. at 94, and his staff representative rendered

 constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to obtain and present video evidence in

 the disciplinary proceedings. “In the [a]lternative,” Mr. Lett provided notice of his

 intent to appeal and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. R. at 93.

       The district court docketed this document twice, once as a notice of appeal of

 the district court’s April 1 order and judgment, and again as a motion for

 reconsideration of the April 1 order. This court then entered an order abating the

 appeal pending the district court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration,

 stating “the notice of appeal will become effective when the district court enters an

 order disposing of the post-judgment motion.” Lett v. Lovett, No. 22-1124, Order

 (10th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022). The district court denied the motion for reconsideration on

 April 29, 2022, ruling that any alleged failures by the staff representative would not

 impact its prior “analysis because there is no right to counsel in prison disciplinary

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 5

 proceedings.” R. at 106 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570 (1974)).

 Mr. Lett did not file a new or amended notice of appeal related to the district court’s

 April 29 order.

                                      II. Discussion

       Mr. Lett argues the district court made two errors in denying his § 2241

 petition: (1) the district court should have found a violation of his due process and

 equal protection rights based on his staff representative’s ineffective assistance in the

 disciplinary proceedings; and (2) the district court should have found a violation of

 his due process and equal protection rights because the evidence presented at his

 disciplinary hearing did not support his disciplinary conviction. We lack appellate

 jurisdiction to consider his first argument and reject his second argument on the

 merits.

       The district court did not address Mr. Lett’s ineffective-assistance argument

 until its April 29 order denying his motion for reconsideration. While Mr. Lett seeks

 to challenge the April 29 order in this appeal, Mr. Lett did not file a new or amended

 notice of appeal designating the April 29 order after he filed his initial notice on

 April 15. “When an appellant challenges an order ruling on a motion governed by

 Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), a new or amended notice of appeal is necessary even if

 the issue raised in the motion and sought to be challenged could also have been

 challenged in an appeal from the final judgment.” Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Invs.,

 Ltd., 911 F.3d 1000, 1010 (10th Cir. 2018). Because Mr. Lett filed his

 reconsideration motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)

                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 6

 within 28 days of the district court’s judgment, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) governed the district court’s April 29 order denying the motion. See

 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (stating the rule applies to “an order disposing of any

 motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi)

 (listing motions “to alter or amend the judgment under [Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure] 59” and motions “for relief under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 60 if

 the motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered”). Mr. Lett

 therefore had to file a new or amended notice designating the April 29 order to

 preserve appellate review of the district court’s rejection of his ineffective-assistance

 argument. Because he did not, we must dismiss his challenge to the April 29 order

 for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Husky Ventures, 911 F.3d at 1010.

       We acknowledge the apparent harshness of this holding, particularly because

 even the government does not question our jurisdiction and the district court’s

 decision to treat Mr. Lett’s petition for reconsideration as a notice of appeal could

 have understandably caused confusion about the preservation of Mr. Lett’s arguments

 on appeal. But even where “neither party challenges our appellate jurisdiction, we

 have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction.” Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt

 Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001). And “[a]lthough a pro se

 litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard

 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, this court has repeatedly insisted that pro

 se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett v.

 Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets,

                                             6
Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 7

 citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Applying these principles here, we

 lack jurisdiction to review the April 29 order.2

       Mr. Lett next argues the district court erroneously rejected his claim prison

 officials violated his due process rights by convicting him without sufficient

 evidence. “When reviewing the denial of a habeas petition under § 2241, we review

 the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and accept its factual findings unless

 clearly erroneous.” Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034, 1042 (10th Cir. 2017)

 (internal quotation marks omitted). As we explain, the district court did not err.

       Prisoners possess a liberty interest in their statutorily provided good-time

 credits. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557. And prisoners therefore cannot be deprived of

 those credits without due process. See id. But “the requirements of due process are

 satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to

 revoke good time credits.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455.3 “Ascertaining whether this

       2
         Even if we had jurisdiction to consider the argument, we would reject it.
 Mr. Lett did not establish a due process right to assistance in his disciplinary
 proceedings. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570 (recognizing a due process right to
 assistance “[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved,” or when “the complexity of the
 issue makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence
 necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case”). And Mr. Lett likewise did
 not establish a due process violation based on the staff representative’s performance
 in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. See Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d
 1063, 1068 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[A] failure to adhere to administrative regulations does
 not equate to a constitutional violation.”).
       3
          Due process also requires that an inmate “receive: (1) advance written notice
 of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional
 safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in
 his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on
                                             7
Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023       Page: 8

 standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent

 assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the

 relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the

 conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455–56 (emphasis added).

 “The decision can be upheld even if the evidence supporting the decision is

 ‘meager.’” Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1445 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hill,

 472 U.S. at 457).

        Mr. Lett argues the decision by the prison disciplinary board is not supported

 by sufficient evidence because the hearing officer placed too much weight on the

 prison guard’s statement. He suggests evidence not presented at the disciplinary

 hearing, such as a fingerprint analysis of the shank, security footage, or Mr. Walker’s

 testimony, might have exonerated him. But the record does not show Mr. Lett ever

 asked the hearing officer to consider any of this evidence. Just the opposite. The

 record shows “he requested no video to be viewed,” R. at 65 (internal quotation

 marks omitted), and “waived [his] right to witnesses,” R. at 66. Under the

 circumstances, we discern no due process violation in the hearing officer’s failure to

 consider this evidence. See Ramer v. Kerby, 936 F.2d 1102, 1105 (10th Cir. 1991)

 (finding no due process violation where the inmate “effectively den[ied] [prison

 officials] the opportunity to evaluate his request to present . . . testimony at his

 hearing” because the inmate “had waived his right to obtain testimony from these

 and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. Mr. Lett does not
 contend the prison failed to satisfy these due process requirements.
                                              8
Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467        Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 9

 witnesses”); cf. Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 813–14 (10th Cir.

 2007) (holding that the disciplinary hearing officer’s “unjustified refusal to produce

 and review” a video of the incident in question “deprived [the inmate] of the process

 due him,” where the inmate had “reiterated” to the hearing officer “a request [he] had

 consistently made before” for prison officials to “review videotape records”).

       On de novo review, we agree with the district court that the evidence

 considered by the hearing officer satisfies the “some evidence” standard. The

 guard’s statement describes how the guard saw Mr. Lett hand a “dark brown” “shaft

 shaped item” to Mr. Walker and further describes recovering an improvised knife

 from Mr. Walker. The photograph of the improvised knife recovered by the guard

 illustrates its dangerous nature and confirms the guard’s description. Taken together,

 this amounts to “some evidence” Mr. Lett possessed a dangerous weapon. See, e.g.,

 Ruelas v. Zuercher, 240 F. App’x 796, 797 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding an incident

 “report alone constitute[d] ‘some evidence’ of [the convicted inmate’s] guilt”);

 Longstreth v. Franklin, 240 F. App’x 264, 267 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding an “incident

 report was ‘some evidence’”); Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir.

 2008) (“[A] report from a correctional officer, even if disputed by the inmate and

 supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as ‘some evidence’ upon which to

 base a prison disciplinary violation.”); McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786

 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding a correctional officer’s “disciplinary report . . . alone

                                             9
Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467       Date Filed: 02/24/2023    Page: 10

  provide[d] ‘some evidence’ for the” disciplinary conviction).4 That Mr. Lett disputed

  the guard’s report by stating he “had no knowledge of the weapon or disposed of it,”

  id. at 13, does not undermine our conclusion because we do not “assess[] the

  credibility of witnesses[] or weigh[] . . . the evidence,” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. We

  instead only consider “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support

  the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455–56. And in this case,

  considered under the applicable legal standard, there was evidence in the record that

  supported the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.5

                                      III. Conclusion

          We affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Lett’s § 2241 petition. We dismiss

  Mr. Lett’s appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.

  We grant Mr. Lett’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and

  fees.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Veronica S. Rossman
                                              Circuit Judge

          4
          Unpublished cases cited in this decision are not binding precedent, but we
  consider them for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R.
  32.1(A).
          5
           Mr. Lett’s opening brief also argues prison officials violated his right to
  equal protection. But “government action challenged on equal-protection grounds
  must ‘affect some groups of citizens differently than others.’” Citizens for Const.
  Integrity v. United States, 57 F.4th 750, 765 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting Engquist v. Or.
  Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601 (2008)). And Mr. Lett does not argue prison
  officials treated him differently than any similarly-situated individual. We therefore
  reject his equal protection argument.
                                             10