Aponte v. Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 10-140E
| Decision Date | 22 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-140E |
| Parties | JOSE DANIEL CRUZ APONTE, Petitioner v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, and ARCHIE LONGLEY, Respondents |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION
Jose Daniel Cruz Aponte, ("Petitioner") is a federal prisoner currently confined in the Federal Correctional Institution at McKean ("FCI-McKean"), which is located within this judicial district. He is serving an aggregate sentence of 235 months imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico as a consequence of him being convicted in June, 1998, of various drug crimes.
Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("the Petition"), challenging a disciplinary sanction imposed for his attack upon another inmate. The sanction included the disallowance of 27 days of Good Conduct Time ("GCT") which necessarily impacts the amount of time Petitioner will serve in prison. Petitioner's sole claim is that his procedural due process rights were violated in the course of the disciplinary proceedings because the United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") did not comply with certain time requirements listed in the BOP's regulations for conducting disciplinary proceedings.
The first problem with Petitioner's argument is that the BOP regulations do not necessarily define what procedures are required by the Fifth Amendment procedural due process clause of the United States Constitution. Hence, a mere violation of the BOP regulationsregarding timing does not result in the denial of procedural due process under the Constitution. Even if it were otherwise, Petitioner would still not prevail. Because this is a habeas petition and Petitioner must establish that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and because Petitioner cannot show prejudice from any claimed procedural due process violations occurring during the disciplinary proceedings given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, including a videotape capturing Petitioner's striking of the fellow inmate, Petitioner's due process claims do not merit the grant of habeas relief. The Petition will be denied.
The facts are mostly taken from the Answer.
On March 29, 2009, Incident Report No. 1850596 was issued, charging Petitioner with Assaulting Any Person in violation of Code 224. ECF No. 13-1. Incident Report No. 1850596 charged Petitioner with the following:
On 03-29-2009 at 7:30 pm I identified inmate Cruz-Aponte #14797-069 on the CCTV as being involved in an assault on inmate (name and Register Number withheld) by the hobby craft bathroom. Specifically, inmate Cruz-Aponte is seen striking inmate (name withheld) buttocks area with his right foot. Inmate Cruz-Aponte then helped force inmate (name withheld) into the bathroom where he was assaulted by other inmates.
ECF No. 13-1 at 20. On March 30, 2009, the processing of Incident Report No. 1850596 was suspended pending a referral to the United States Attorney's Office for possible criminal prosecution. Id., at 21. On April 2, 2009, the United States Attorney's Office released the Incident Report to FCI-McKean for internal disciplinary action, i.e., declined to criminally prosecute Petitioner. Id., at 21.
On April 2, 2009, Incident Report No. 1850596 was delivered to Petitioner. Id., at 20.Upon delivery of the Incident Report to Petitioner, an investigation was conducted. Petitioner was advised of his right to remain silent during the disciplinary process. Id., at 21. After the Incident Report was read to him, Petitioner indicated that he understood the charges against him, and he stated, Id., at p. 21. Petitioner did not request any witnesses. Id. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Lieutenant referred the Incident Report to the Unit Discipline Committee ("UDC") for an initial hearing. Id.
On April 3, 2009, the UDC convened for an initial hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the UDC referred Incident Report No. 1850596 to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") for final disposition. The UDC recommended that if Petitioner was found to have violated Code 224, that he should be sanctioned by: disallowance of GCT, disciplinary segregation ("DS"), and disciplinary transfer.
After the initial hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights at the DHO Hearing. ECF No. 13-1 at 23. Petitioner waived his right to a staff representative and to witnesses at the DHO Hearing. ECF No. 13-1 at 25.
On April 9, 2009, the DHO hearing for Incident Report No. 1850596 was held at FCI-McKean. ECF No. 13-1 at 27 to 29. Petitioner was advised of his rights before the DHO. He declined to make any statement to the DHO. Id., at 27. The DHO noted that in addition to the Incident Report and Petitioner's oral statement, he also considered a videotape of the incident. Id., at 28. At the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO determined that Petitioner committed the prohibited act of assault in violation of Code 224. In reaching its decision, the DHO relied upon the written statement of the reporting staff member indicating that on March29, 2009, at about 7:20 p.m., Petitioner was identified on closed circuit television as being part of an assault on another inmate outside of the hobby craft restroom. Petitioner was observed striking the other inmate in the buttocks area with his right foot. He then helped force the inmate into the restroom where he was assaulted by other inmates. The DHO noted that during the DHO hearing, Petitioner declined to make any statement. The DHO indicated that his decision was also based upon a videotape of the incident showing Petitioner kick the other inmate. Id.
After determining that Petitioner violated Code 224, the DHO imposed the following sanctions: disallow 27 days GCT, 30 days of disciplinary segregation, and recommend disciplinary transfer. Id., at 28.
On April 21, 2009, the DHO delivered the DHO report to Petitioner and advised Petitioner of his appeal rights. Id., at 29. Petitioner challenged the disciplinary action taken in connection with Incident Report No. 1850596 through the BOP Administrative Remedy Process and was denied at both levels of administrative review. ECF No. 13-1 at 9 to 12.
Petitioner then initiated the current action in June, 2010. The Petition was formally docketed along with a Memorandum of Law in Support. ECF Nos. 4, 5. The Answer was not filed until November 9, 2010. ECF No. 13. Petitioner then filed a Reply to the Answer. ECF No. 14.
The case was reassigned to the undersigned in June, 2011. ECF No. 15. All the parties have consented to have the Magistrate Judge exercise plenary jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 7, 9.
Petitioner raises only one issue in the Petition. He claims that "Petitioner's fifth Amendment Right To Due [Process] Was violated During The Bureau of Prisons Disciplinary" proceedings. ECF No. 4 at 5. The sole factual basis for this claim appears to be Petitioner's contention that the BOP authorities failed to comply with their own internal rules governing the time limits for providing a prisoner a written copy of the disciplinary charges against him. ECF No. 5 at 4. Petitioner cites to 28 C.F.R. § 541.15(a) as the provision which the BOP authorities failed to comply with. ECF No. 5 at 4. Petitioner quotes that section as providing that "Staff shall give each inmate charged with a violation of Bureau rules a written copy of the charge(s) against the inmate, ordinarily within 24 hours of the time staff became aware of the incident." ECF No. 5 at 4.1 More specifically, Petitioner complains that rather than receiving his disciplinary incident report within 24 hours, he did not receive the report until more than 29 hours after the incident occurred. ECF No. 5 at 4 ( ). Petitioner also notes that "no good cause" was given forthis delay of roughly 5 hours. ECF No. 5 at 4 to 5.
Petitioner, in his Reply also seems to complain of another delay, namely the alleged delay between the time the staff became aware of the incident and the time a hearing must be held before the UDC, which is three days. Petitioner does not specifically state how long the delay was regarding the holding of the UDC hearing. ECF No. 14 at 2 to 3.
Petitioner then makes a leap from the violation of the BOP rules regarding time limits, which are found in the United States Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), to asserting that such violations of the rules, in and of themselves, also violate Petitioner's procedural due process rights. See id.
As relief, Petitioner seeks to have the DHO's decision reversed and his GCT restored and the incident report expunged. ECF No. 5 at 6.
The delay(s) were explained by the fact that the Incident Report was suspended pending referral for possible criminal prosecution by the United States Attorney who declined to prosecute. ECF No. 13-1 at 21. This suspension was explained to Petitioner by the National Inmate Appeals Administrator in response to Petitioner's appeal. Specifically, Petitioner was informed that:
Your incident report was suspended pending a referral to the FBI for possible prosecution. Policy permits the suspension of an incident report for referral to other law enforcement agencies. Although you experienced delay in the disciplinary process, we do not find, nor did you provide any evidence that your ability to prepare a defense was hindered. Furthermore, as indicated by the Regional Director, the one day delay does not warrant expunction.
A. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Procedural due process in the context of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial