Court Opinion

ID: 9961700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 16:00:52.146848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:43.865273
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2979
                         ___________________________

               Nastassia (Goff) Frees, also known as Nastassia Goff

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

                                            v.

                             Michael Segal, FCI Warden

                       lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: April 16, 2024
                                Filed: April 19, 2024
                                    [Unpublished]
                                    ____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Federal prisoner Nastassia Frees appeals the district court’s1 order denying her
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted

      1
      The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
in the loss of good conduct time. Following de novo review, we conclude that “some
evidence” supports the hearing officer’s decision that Frees aided the possession of
a drug not prescribed for another inmate by the medical staff. See Flowers v.
Anderson, 661 F.3d 977, 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). A guard saw Frees
allow another inmate access to her own prescription bottle of medication for a higher
dosage than prescribed to the other inmate, constituting a violation under the plain
language of the disciplinary code or a reasonable interpretation of it. We therefore
affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-