Jimmie Johnson v. T. Outlaw


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [3961373] [12-1823]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1823 ___________________________ Jimmie Lee Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. T. C. Outlaw, Warden, FCI-Forrest City lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2012 Filed: October 9, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Jimmie Johnson appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged disciplinary proceedings that 1 The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Appellate Case: 12-1823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Entry ID: 3961373 ultimately resulted in, among other things, a loss of good-time credits. Upon careful de novo review, see Mitchell v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that Johnson was afforded adequate due process in the disciplinary proceedings, and that the disciplinary decision was supported by “some evidence,” see Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-57 (1985) (when prison disciplinary hearing results in loss of good-time credits, inmate must receive (1) advance notice of charges; (2) opportunity--consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals--to call witnesses and present documentary evidence; and (3) factfinder’s written statement of evidence relied upon and reasons for disciplinary action; regarding sufficiency of evidence, due process is satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision to revoke good-time credits; “some evidence” standard does not require examination of entire record, independent assessment of credibility of witnesses, or weighing of evidence; even if evidence is “meager,” due process satisfied as long as record is not so devoid of evidence that findings of disciplinary board were without support or otherwise arbitrary). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-1823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Entry ID: 3961373

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?