Mitchell v. Bradley, Civil Action No. 18 - 223J
| Decision Date | 19 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18 - 223J |
| Parties | KEMP EARL MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. ERIC BRADLEY, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Petitioner Kemp Earl Mitchell ("Petitioner") is a federal prisoner2 currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") Loretto in Cresson, Pennsylvania. On December 27, 2017, while confined at FCI Fort Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey, he was issued Incident Report 3071868, charging him with Possession of a Hazardous Tool (Cellular Phone), Prohibited Act Code 108.3 On November 6, 2018, Petitioner initiated the instant federal habeas corpusproceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the disciplinary hearing process. Petitioner seeks expungement of the Incident Report and restoration of 40 days good conduct time. Because the Court finds that Petitioner was afforded the full panoply of procedural protections to which he was entitled, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 3) will be denied. Alternatively, the Petition will be dismissed as moot.
On December 27, 2017, at 9:00 p.m., an officer from FCI Fort Dix was conducting unit rounds when he encountered Petitioner standing near an exit door. The officer ordered Petitioner to submit to a pat search. As Petitioner turned around and extended his arms, the officer observed Petitioner drop a small, black cell phone and charger into a cleaning bucket. When the officer finished the pat search, he retrieved the cell phone from the bucket. The officer preserved the chain of custody of the phone and took photos of it. (Resp't Exh. 2, ECF No. 17-5, pp.5, 12-13.)
The officer wrote Incident Report 3071868, charging Petitioner with Possession of a Hazardous Tool (Cellular Phone), Prohibited Act Code 108, on December 27, 2017 at 9:40 p.m.. (Resp't Exh. 2; ECF No. 17-5, pp.7-9.) It is noted that Petitioner was provided with a copy of the report and notified of the charge against him on December 28, 2017 at 7:49 p.m. Id., p.7. The Incident Report was subsequently rewritten on December 30, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.,4 and it is noted that Petitioner was provided with a copy of it and advised of his rights at 4:20 p.m. that same day. Id., pp.5-6. When asked if he wanted to make a statement on his behalf, Petitionerstated, Id., p.6. Petitioner requested no witnesses stating that "there were none." Id. After finding that the information contained within the Incident Report was correctly written and the charge valid, the investigator referred the matter to a Unit Discipline Committee ("UDC") for further disposition. Id.
On January 8, 2018, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner appeared before the UDC. Id., p.5. When asked if he wanted to make a statement, Petitioner stated, "The incident report is not true and I did not have a cell phone." Id. The UDC forwarded the matter to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") for further disposition. Id. On that same date, Petitioner was provided with a form titled Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO and a form titled Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing, both of which he signed and both of which are dated January 8, 2018. Id., pp.10-11. Petitioner requested two witnesses and waived his right to a staff representative. Id.
Petitioner's DHO hearing was held on January 9, 2018 at 4:35 p.m. Id., p.2. The DHO Report indicates that Petitioner stated that he understood his rights and raised no issues about the disciplinary process. Id. He denied the charged stating, "Jones did not see me and I did not drop a phone in the bucket; I have never had an issue with Jones." Id. The two witnesses Petitioner requested made statements, each stating that they witnessed the officer leave after patting down Petitioner. Id. The DHO considered the evidence, including the chain of custody log, photo sheet with pictures depicting the cell phone, Petitioner's statement and the statements of his witnesses, and he found that Petitioner committed the prohibited act as charged. Id., p.3. The DHO noted that he did not find Petitioner credible and his witnesses did not provide exculpatory evidence. Id. The DHO also noted that while the Incident Report was re-written and re-processed through the disciplinary process, that did not violate Petitioner's due process rightssince he was "provided sufficient notice concerning the allegations against you, and you were able to prepare a defense." Id. The DHO sanctioned Petitioner to 40 days disallowance of Good Conduct Time and six months loss of commissary, email, phone and visiting privileges effective January 9, 2018, through July 8, 2018. Id., p.4. Petitioner was provided with a copy of the DHO Report on March 28, 2018. Id. He unsuccessfully administratively appealed the DHO's decision. (Resp't Exh. 1; ECF No. 17-1.)
In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner makes several procedural challenges to his disciplinary hearings. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 17.) This matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is now ripe for disposition.
Petitioner makes several procedural challenges to his prison disciplinary proceedings claiming that his due process rights were violated because staff did not have the authority to rewrite the Incident Report, staff failed to comply with the 24-hour mandate for writing and delivering the Incident Report, and the case manager was not a certified DHO and did not sign the DHO Report. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.)
It is well established that "[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). The United States Supreme Court has, however, recognized a set of minimum procedural protections that must apply to prison disciplinary proceedings, including the right to: (1) appear before an impartial decision-making body; (2) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges no less than 24 hours before the disciplinaryhearing; (3) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety or correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence as part of a defense; (4) assistance from an inmate representative, or substitute aid from staff, if the charged inmate is illiterate or if complex issues are involved; and (5) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Id. at 564, 566, 570-71.
In the federal prison system, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has, by regulation, adopted specific guidelines for inmate discipline procedures which are set forth at 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.1-541.8. These guidelines are specifically tailored and designed to meet or exceed the due process requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Wolff, supra. See Von Kahl v. Brennan, 855 F. Supp. 1413, 1418 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Under these regulations, when prison staff have reason to believe that a prohibited act has been committed by an inmate, an incident report must be prepared and referred for investigation.5 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a)-(b). After investigation, the incident report is referred to a UDC, consisting of two or more staff designated by the Warden for an initial hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. The inmate, in turn, is entitled to appear before the UDC during its review of the incident report, except during UDC deliberations or when the inmate's presence would jeopardize institution security, and the inmate is entitled to make a statement and present documentary evidence. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(d)-(e). The UDC may either reach a finding regarding whether a prohibited act was committed or refer the case to the DHO for further hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(f)-(g). The DHO then has the authority to dismiss any charge, to find a prohibited act was committed, and to impose any available sanction for the act.28 C.F.R. § 541.8(a). The DHO hearing is conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 541.8.
Throughout this hearing process, the inmate is provided with a series of procedural rights. For example, the inmate is entitled to notice of the alleged infraction. Specifically, the Warden must give the inmate advance written notice of the charges no less than 24 hours before the DHO hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(c). The inmate is also entitled to assistance at DHO hearings. In particular, the Warden must provide the inmate with a full-time staff member to represent him at the DHO hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(d).
The inmate also has a series of procedural rights at the hearing itself. At the DHO hearing, the inmate is entitled to make a statement and present documentary evidence. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f). The inmate also has the right to submit names of requested witnesses and have them called to testify. While the DHO need not call repetitive witnesses or adverse witnesses, the DHO shall call those witnesses who have information directly relevant to the charges and who are reasonably available. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f). The inmate has the right to be present throughout the DHO hearing except during deliberation or when institutional security would be jeopardized. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(e).
In addition, the regulations prescribe procedural standards for DHO decision-making. The regulations require that the DHO must consider all evidence presented at the hearing. The decision of the DHO must be based on the facts presented, and if there is conflicting evidence, it must be based on the greater weight of the evidence. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f). Finally, the DHO must prepare a record of the proceedings. This record must be sufficient to document the advisement of inmate rights, the DHO's findings, the DHO's decision and the specific evidencerelied upon by...
To continue reading
Request your trial