Kareem Milhouse v. Warden Lewisburg USP

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: GREENAWAY JR., GREENBERG and ROTH, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3.

Case: 16-3503

Document: 003112773263

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/08/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3503
___________
KAREEM HASSAN MILHOUSE,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-16-cv-00618)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 21, 2017
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., GREENBERG and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 8, 2017)
___________
OPINION *
___________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-3503

Document: 003112773263

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/08/2017

Kareem Hassan Milhouse appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons below, we
will affirm the District Court’s order.
In his petition, Milhouse challenged disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the
loss of 68 days of good conduct time. 1 He had been charged with possession of a weapon
and destroying Government property, namely a mattress. He argued that there was
insufficient evidence to support the charges. He asserted that the damaged mattress had
another inmate’s name written on it in black marker and that the homemade knife was
found in a separate mattress on the top bunk of a shared cell. The District Court
dismissed the petition before service, and Milhouse filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s
denial of federal habeas relief de novo. Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir.
2013). A decision to revoke good time credits must be supported by some evidence.
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). This “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.

1

According to the electronic docket of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Millhouse is serving a prison sentence of 894 months for bank
robbery and firearm charges. He also has a consecutive sentence of 300 months for
aggravated sexual assault, sexual abuse, assault, escape, and possession of a dangerous
weapon in a federal facility. Given that he has sentences totaling almost one hundred
years, the loss of 68 days would appear to have little practical effect on the total sentence
he will serve.
2

Case: 16-3503

Document: 003112773263

Page: 3

Date Filed: 11/08/2017

In finding that Milhouse committed the charges, the Hearing Officer relied on the
written report of the officer who performed the cell search and photographs of the knife
and the damaged mattress. We have held that the discovery of contraband within a
shared cell constitutes “some evidence” that each prisoner in the cell possessed the
contraband. Denny, 708 F.3d at 146. Thus, the discovery of the knife in Milhouse’s cell
supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that Milhouse possessed the weapon. As for
his mattress, Milhouse did not dispute that it was damaged; rather, he asserted that he
received it that way. The Hearing Officer gave greater weight to the institution’s
procedure to issue unaltered bedding to inmates. Thus, there was also some evidence that
Milhouse had damaged his mattress.
Milhouse requests that we consider documents he attached to a motion to reopen
filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, this motion was filed after he filed this
appeal. These documents were not before the District Court when it entered its decision,
and we may not consider them. See Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon, 807 F.2d 1150, 1165
(3d Cir.1986) (“The only proper function of a court of appeals is to review the decision
below on the basis of the record that was before the district court.”). Moreover, those
documents do not undermine our conclusion that some evidence supports the Hearing
Officer’s decision.
For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s decision.

3