Alani v. Copenhaven

Filing 60

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order: SUBSTITUTING J.T. Shartle, Warden, as Respondent for Charles E. Samuels, Jr. pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; DENYING Petitioner's First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 18 ); DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner's Motion fo r Summary Judgment (Doc. 51 ); DENYING Petitioner's Motion to Strike (Doc. 51 ); and DENYING Petitioner's Motion for Waiver of Form Requirements (Doc. 58 ). See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 6/17/2015. (MFR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Martin Sanchez-Alaniz,1

10

Petitioner,

No. CV-14-00324-TUC-RCC (BGM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

11
12
13

v.
J. T. Shartle, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15
16
17

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Martin Sanchez-Alaniz’s pro se
First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person

18
19

in Federal Custody (“Petition”) (Doc. 18). Respondent has filed his Return and Answer

20

to Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss

21

Petition (“Response”) (Doc. 38). Petitioner filed his Reply and Petitioners [sic] Motion

22
23

for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50). Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion

24

for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike (Doc. 51) and Motion for Waiver of Form

25

Requirements (Doc. 58).

26
1

27
28

The Court docket spells Petitioner’s name as “Martin Sanchez Alanis;” however,
the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) list Petitioner as “Martin Sanchez-Alaniz.” See
BOP Inmate Locator, available at http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited June 10,
2015). For consistency with BOP, the Court adopts the latter spelling.

1
2

As an initial matter, Petitioner named Craig Apker, Warden of the United States
Penitentiary–Tucson (“USP–Tucson”) as the Respondent. See Petition (Doc. 18). The

3
4
5
6

Court takes judicial notice, however, that Craig Apker is no longer warden of USP–
Tucson. As such, the Court will substitute the new Warden of USP–Tucson, J. T.
Shartle, as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7

Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure,2 this matter

8
9
10

was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny the Petition (Doc. 1).

11
12
13
14
15

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at USP–Tucson, serving a 108-month sentence

for Re-entry of a Deported Alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). See

16
17
18
19

Response (Doc. 38), Talplacido Decl. (Exh. “A”), Judgment & Commitment 3/6/2012
(Attach. “2”) & Sentence Monitoring Computation Data (Attach. “3”).

Petitioner

committed the underlying offense which gave rise to his incarceration on July 14, 2011.

20
21

Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “2” at 1 & Attach. “3” at 1. Petitioner’s projected release date is

22

October 4, 2019 via Good Conduct Time (“GCT”) release. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “3” at

23

1. Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas

24
25

Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody on April 21, 2014. See Petition (Doc. 18).

26

Petitioner challenges a disciplinary conviction that resulted in his loss of good

27

time credits. Petitioner alleges that “administrative staff has [sic] illegally forfeited [sic]

28

2

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
-2-

1
2

a grand total of 108 days of NONVESTED GOOD TIME CREDITS” in violation of his
constitutional rights.

Petition (Doc. 18) at 4.

Petitioner requests this Court order

3
4

Respondents to return the 108 days of good time credits. Id. at 6.

5
6

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7
8

This matter arises from four (4) separate Incident Reports. Petitioner seeks relief

9

from the aggregate punishment of those proceedings. Petitioner instituted the current

10

proceeding on October 25, 2013. See Petition’s Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2241

11
12

(Doc. 1).

13

A. Incident Report Number 2322016

14

On June 30, 2012 at approximately 5:50 p.m., Correctional Officer (“CO”)

15

Derrington was feeding the evening meal in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”), when

16
17
18
19

Petitioner blocked the food slot and demanded a no egg tray. Response (Doc. 38), Exh.
“A,” Incident Report No. 2322016 (Attach. “6”) at 4. CO Derrington ordered Petitioner
to allow him to close the food slot, but he refused. Id. Petitioner then threw his food tray

20
21

at CO Derrington, who avoided being hit. Id. Petitioner then used a long piece of metal

22

from the shower stall, put it through the food slot, and knocked the remaining food trays

23

from CO Derrington’s cart. Id. CO Derrington removed the weapon and notified the

24
25

Operations Lieutenant. Id. CO Derrington charged Petitioner with the prohibited act of

26

Attempt to Assault Any Person in violation of Code 224A. Response (Doc. 38), Exh.

27

“A,” Attach. “6” at 4. The following day, Lieutenant L. Williams delivered the incident

28

report to Petitioner. Id. Lieutenant Williams also investigated the incident and advised
-3-

1
2

Petitioner of his rights. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “6” at 5. During Lieutenant Williams’s
investigation, Petitioner stated that “they were trying to give me Spaghetti as the meal

3
4
5
6

and I do not eat eggs.” Id. Petitioner did not request any witnesses. Id. Lieutenant
Williams forwarded the Incident Report to the Unit Discipline Committee (“UDC”) for
further disposition. Id.

7
On July 5, 2012, the UDC conducted its hearing. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”

8
9

Attach. “6” at 6.3 At the hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights, and stated that he

10

understood those rights. Id. Petitioner’s only statement was “no comment.” Id. Based

11
12

on the severity of the alleged misconduct, the UDC referred the matter to the Discipline

13

Hearing Officer (“DHO”) for final disposition, and if Petitioner was found guilty,

14

recommended sanctions including loss of Good Conduct Time (“GCT”), loss of

15

telephone privileges, and loss of commissary privileges. Id. The UDC also provided

16
17
18
19

Petitioner with a Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO and his rights at that
hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “6” at 7–8. Petitioner indicated that he wished to have a
staff representative, as well as a witness at his DHO hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “6”

20
21

at 8. Later, Petitioner apparently signed a statement indicating that he had decided

22

against utilizing a staff representative at the DHO hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “6” at

23

8–9.

24
25
26
27
28

On October 10, 2012, Petitioner had a DHO hearing before DHO A. Truex. See
Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” DHO Report for Incident Report No. 2322016 (Attach.
3

The typewritten date on Part II of Incident Report No. 2322016 is July 5, 2011,
but all other dates associated with this portion of the incident were dated 2012. The
Court finds that the 2011 date was a typographical error.
-4-

1
2

“6”) at 1–3. DHO Truex noted that on July 5, 2012, Counselor H. Preston had advised
Petitioner of his rights before the DHO, and he indicated that he understood them. Id.,

3
4
5
6

Exh. “A,” Attach. “6” at 1. Petitioner waived his right to a staff representative at the
DHO hearing.

Id.

Petitioner also waived his requested witnesses, stated that he

understood his rights before the DHO, and “admitted guilt to attempting to assault an

7
8
9
10
11
12

officer by throwing the lid to his food tray at him.” Id. Petitioner declined to make any
further statement, and did not submit any documentary evidence. Id.
DHO Truex considered the Incident Report; Petitioner’s admission at the DHO
hearing to committing the offense; and Petitioner’s silence during the investigation and

13

before the UDC, drawing an adverse inference therefrom. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”

14

Attach. “6” at 2. DHO Truex also noted that upon commitment to the BOP, Petitioner

15

participated in the Admission and Orientation (“A&O”) program, and was advised of

16
17
18
19

BOP rules and regulations, as well as provided an A&O handbook. Id. Accordingly,
DHO Truex determined sufficient facts existed to find Petitioner guilty of the prohibited
act of Attempting to Assault Any Person (Code 224A). Id. DHO Truex imposed

20
21

sanctions totaling thirty (30) days Disciplinary Segregation, twenty-seven (27) days

22

Disallowance of Good Conduct Time, and ninety (90) days loss of telephone privileges to

23

begin on January 8, 2013, consecutive to Incident Report Number 2341527. Id. On

24
25
26
27
28

November 30, 2012, DHO Truex signed the DHO report and it was delivered to
Petitioner on December 7, 2012. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “6” at 3.
On February 15, 2013, Petitioner filed his Regional Administrative Remedy
Appeal regarding Incident Report Number 2322016. Petition (Doc. 18) at 13. On March
-5-

1
2

19, 2013, Petitioner received a denial of his Regional Appeal. Response (Doc. 38),
Attach. “A,” Admin. Remedy Index & Copies of Relevant Admin. Remedies (Attach.

3
4
5
6

“7”) at 145, 146. On June 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a Central Office Administrative
Remedy Appeal to the Director. Petition (Doc. 18) at 12. In his appeal, Petitioner
explains that although he received the Regional Director’s response on March 19, 2013,

7
8
9
10
11
12

he was transferred on March 20, 2013 to USP–Tucson. Id. The record is unclear as to
when Petitioner received his legal papers and other personal property.

A note by

Petitioner on an Administrative Remedy Receipt dated February 15, 2013, regarding
Incident Report No. 2322016, indicates that Petitioner received the Regional Appeal

13

decision on June 23, 2013. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 80.4 On July 2,

14

2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office Appeal, which was denied due to

15

Petitioner’s failure to include a staff memo excusing the untimeliness on July 5, 2013.

16
17
18
19

Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 57. On September 17, 2013, Petitioner wrote a letter to the
Central Office Director indicating that he had been unsuccessfully attempting to obtain a
“late memo” from prison staff, and accused BOP of preventing him from exhausting his

20
21

administrative remedies. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 101. On March 20, 2014, Unit

22

Manager S. Hansen issued a Memorandum for Administrative Remedy Clerk indicating

23

that Petitioner had arrived at USP–Tucson on December 2, 2013, and received his

24
25
26
27
28

personal property on or about May 16, 2013. Petition (Doc. 18) at 7. On June 23, 2014,
Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal was accepted. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach.
4

The February 15, 2013 “Receipt – Administrative Remedy” appears at page 80 of
Attachment “7,” but the page number of the court’s docket is 130. Except where otherwise
noted, this Order refers to the actual page number within an attachment.

-6-

1
2

“7” at 70. No response was issued for Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal. Response
(Doc. 38) at 7.

3
4
5
6

B. Incident Report Number 2323351
On July 4, 2012 at approximately 6:15 p.m., CO K. Luse “was passing out the
evening meal on A-2 Range.” Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Incident Report No.

7
8

2323351 (Attach. “8”) at 4. When CO Luse attempted to hand the evening meal through

9

the food slot to Petitioner, Petitioner refused and “placed his arm on the food slot

10

preventing it from being closed.” Id. Petitioner stated that the noodles contained eggs, to

11
12

which he is allergic, and demanded CO Luse call the kitchen. Id. CO Luse and CO

13

Williamson informed Petitioner that the kitchen had been notified prior to the delivery of

14

the hot food tray, and the food service staff verified that the noodles did not contain any

15

eggs. Id. Petitioner was ordered to remove his arm from the food, but he refused. Id.

16
17
18
19

Petitioner became irate and used profanity, and as CO Luse proceeded down the range
toward the next cell, Petitioner threw milk, trays, books, and trash in his direction.
Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “8” at 4. CO Luse was struck in the upper body

20
21

by a book thrown by Petitioner through his food slot. Id. CO Luse charged Petitioner

22

with the prohibited act of Assaulting any Person, Refusing to obey an order of any staff

23

member in violation of Code 224.

24
25

Id.

The following day, Lieutenant A. Phillips

delivered the incident report to Petitioner. Id. Lieutenant Phillips also investigated the

26

incident and advised Petitioner of his rights. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “8” at 5. During

27

Lieutenant Phillips’s investigation, Petitioner stated that he was “throwing items at the

28

food cart trying to knock the food trays off . . . not trying to hit the officer.” Id.
-7-

1
2

Petitioner further stated that “he was trying to get the Officer to get a meal replacement
for the spaghetti, stating it is an egg product.” Id. Lieutenant Phillips forwarded the

3
4
5
6

Incident Report to the UDC for further disposition. Id.
On July 6, 2012, the UDC conducted its hearing. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”
Attach. “8” at 6. At the hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights, and acknowledged

7
8

the same. Id. Petitioner’s only statement was “no comment.” Id. Based on the severity

9

of the misconduct, the UDC referred the matter to the DHO for final disposition, and if

10

Petitioner was found guilty, recommended sanctions including loss of GCT, disciplinary

11
12

segregation, and loss of commissary privileges. Id. The UDC also provided Petitioner

13

with a Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO and his rights at that hearing. Id.,

14

Exh. “A,” Attach. “8” at 7–8.

15

Petitioner indicated that he wished to have a staff

representative, but did not request any witnesses, at his DHO hearing. Response (Doc.

16
17
18
19

38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “8” at 8. Later, Petitioner apparently decided against utilizing a
staff representative at the DHO hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “8” at 8–9.
On October 10, 2012, Petitioner had a DHO hearing before DHO A. Truex. See

20
21

Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” DHO Report for Incident Report No. 2323351 (Attach.

22

“8”) at 1–3. DHO Truex noted that on July 6, 2012, Counselor H. Preston had advised

23

Petitioner of his rights before the DHO. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “8” at 1. At the DHO

24
25

hearing, Petitioner indicated that he understood his rights, waived his right to a staff

26

representative at the DHO hearing, and requested no witnesses. Id. Petitioner “admitted

27

guilt to assaulting an Officer by throwing a book at him and hitting him in [sic] the upper

28

side of his body.” Id. Petitioner declined to make any further statement, and did not
-8-

1
2

submit any documentary evidence. Id.
DHO Truex considered the Incident Report; Petitioner’s admission at the DHO

3
4
5
6

hearing to committing the offense; Petitioner’s admission during the investigation; and
Petitioner’s silence before the UDC, drawing an adverse inference therefrom. Id., Exh.
“A,” Attach. “8” at 2. DHO Truex also noted that upon commitment to the BOP,

7
8

Petitioner participated in the A&O program, and was advised of BOP rules and

9

regulations, as well as provided an A&O handbook. Id. Accordingly, DHO Truex

10

determined sufficient facts existed to find Petitioner committed the prohibited act of

11
12

Assaulting Any Person (Code 224). Id. DHO Truex imposed sanctions totaling thirty

13

(30) days Disciplinary Segregation, twenty-seven (27) days disallowance of GCT, and

14

one hundred twenty (120) days loss of telephone privileges to begin on April 8, 2013,

15

consecutive to Incident Report Numbers 2341527 and 2322016. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach.

16
17
18
19

“8” at 3. On November 30, 2012, DHO Truex signed the DHO report and it was
delivered to Petitioner on December 7, 2012. Id.
On February 15, 2013, Petitioner filed his Regional Administrative Remedy

20
21

Appeal regarding Incident Report Number 2323351. Petition (Doc. 18) at 23; see also

22

Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 52. Petitioner’s Regional Appeal was

23

denied.5 Petition (Doc. 18) at 24. On May 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a Central Office

24
25
26
27
28

Administrative Remedy Appeal. Petition (Doc. 18) at 22. In his appeal, Petitioner
5

Petitioner redacted the date from his Regional Appeal Response, and the copy that
appears to match filed by Respondent has a different Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal
No. handwritten in, because it appears that the original page was miscopied. See Response (Doc.
38), Exh. “A,” Att. “7” at 224. The Court notes that the signature on each copy appears to
match, and Respondent’s copy is dated March 7, 2013.

-9-

1
2

explains that although he received the Regional Director’s response on March 19, 2013,
he was transferred on March 20, 2013. Id. On June 5, 2013, Petitioner’s Central Office

3
4
5
6

Appeal was denied as untimely. Id. at 21; see also Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”
Attach. “7” at 55. On August 19, 2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office Appeal,
which was denied on August 29, 2013, because it lacked staff verification regarding its

7
8

untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 59. On September 27, 2013, Petitioner again

9

resubmitted his Central Office Appeal, which was denied on October 17, 2013, because it

10

lacked staff verification regarding its untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 60. On

11
12

November 12, 2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office Appeal, which was again

13

denied on November 18, 2013, because it lacked staff verification regarding its

14

untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 63. On April 20, 2014, Petitioner resubmitted

15

his Central Office Appeal, with a March 20, 2014 memorandum containing staff

16
17
18
19

verification that his prior untimely submissions were not his fault. Petition (Doc. 18) at
20. Petitioner’s appeal was rejected, because “photocopies of the first page of [his] BP11 form [were] not acceptable.” Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 66. On

20
21
22
23
24
25

June 23, 2014, Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal was accepted. Response (Doc. 38),
Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 69. No response was issued. Response (Doc. 38) at 9.
C. Incident Report Number 2323375
On July 4, 2012 at approximately 6:15 p.m., CO L. Williamson handed his keys to

26

CO Luse and “proceeded down A-2 range to notify Inmate Sanchez-Alaniz, Martin Reg.

27

#31293-177 what food service said about his dinner meal.” Response (Doc. 38), Exh.

28

“A,” Incident Report No. 2323375 (Attach. “9”) at 4.
- 10 -

CO Williamson approached

1
2

Petitioner’s cell # 215, and noted that the food slot was open and Petitioner had his arm
resting on the slot. Id. CO Williamson informed Petitioner “that food service said the

3
4
5
6

dinner meal contained no eggs, [Petitioner] said[,] ‘they [sic] are a FUCKING lie and I’m
tired of them playing Fucking games.” Id. Petitioner then picked up a Styrofoam cup
filled with red liquid and threw it at CO Williamson, striking him on his right shoulder.

7
8

Id. CO Williamson notified the Special Housing Lieutenant of the incident. Id. CO

9

Williamson charged Petitioner with the prohibited act of Assaulting Any Person,

10

Refusing to obey an order of any staff member in violation of Code 224. Response (Doc.

11
12

38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “9” at 4. The following day, Lieutenant A. Phillips delivered the

13

incident report to Petitioner. Id. Lieutenant Phillips also investigated the incident and

14

advised Petitioner of his rights. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “9” at 5. During Lieutenant

15

Phillips’s investigation, Petitioner indicated that he understood his rights, and stated “that

16
17
18
19

he did throw a cup of Kool-Aid on the Officer due to being mad about his meal . . . [and]
that he was trying to get the Officer to get a meal replacement for the spaghetti, stating it
is an egg product.” Id. Lieutenant Phillips forwarded the Incident Report to the UDC for

20
21

further disposition. Id.

22

On July 6, 2012, the UDC conducted its hearing. Response (Doc. 35), Exh. “A,”

23

Attach. “9” at 6. At the hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights, and acknowledged

24
25

the same. Id. Petitioner’s only statement was “no comment.” Id. Based on the severity

26

of the misconduct, the UDC referred the matter to the DHO for final disposition, and if

27

Petitioner was found guilty, recommended sanctions including loss of GCT, disciplinary

28

segregation, and loss of telephone privileges. Id. The UDC also provided Petitioner with
- 11 -

1
2

a Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO and his rights at that hearing. Id., Exh.
“A,” Attach. “9” at 7–8. Petitioner indicated that he wished to have a staff representative

3
4
5
6

at his DHO hearing, but no witnesses. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “9” at 8.
Later, Petitioner apparently decided against utilizing a staff representative at the DHO
hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “9” at 8–9.

7
8

On October 10, 2012, Petitioner had a DHO hearing before DHO A. Truex. See

9

Response (Doc. 35), Exh. “A,” DHO Report for Incident Report No. 2323375 (Attach.

10

“9”) at 1–3. DHO Truex noted that on July 6, 2012, Counselor H. Preston had advised

11
12

Petitioner of his rights before the DHO. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “9” at 1. At the DHO

13

hearing, Petitioner indicated that he understood his rights, waived his right to a staff

14

representative at the DHO hearing, and requested no witnesses. Id. Petitioner “admitted

15

guilt to assaulting an Officer by throwing a cup filled with red liquid at him and hitting

16
17
18
19

him on his right shoulder.” Id. Petitioner declined to make any further statement, and
did not submit any documentary evidence. Id.
DHO Truex considered the Incident Report; Petitioner’s admission at the DHO

20
21

hearing to committing the offense; Petitioner’s admission during the investigation; and

22

Petitioner’s silence before the UDC, drawing an adverse inference therefrom. Id., Exh.

23

“A,” Attach. “9” at 2. DHO Truex also noted that upon commitment to the BOP,

24
25

Petitioner participated in the A&O program, and was advised of BOP rules and

26

regulations, as well as provided an A&O handbook. Id. Accordingly, DHO Truex

27

determined sufficient facts existed to find Petitioner committed the prohibited act of

28

Assaulting Any Person (Code 224). Id. DHO Truex imposed sanctions totaling thirty
- 12 -

1
2

(30) days Disciplinary Segregation, twenty-seven (27) days disallowance of GCT, and
one hundred twenty (120) days loss of telephone privileges to begin on August 6, 2013,

3
4
5
6

consecutive to Incident Report Numbers 2341527, 2322016, and 2323351. Id. On
November 30, 2012, DHO Truex signed the DHO report and it was delivered to
Petitioner on December 7, 2012. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “9” at 3.

7
8

On February 15, 2013, Petitioner filed his Regional Administrative Remedy

9

Appeal regarding Incident Report Number 2323375. Petition (Doc. 18) at 28; see also

10

Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 52. On March 7, 2013, Petitioner’s

11
12

Regional Appeal was denied. Petition (Doc. 18) at 29; Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”

13

Attach. “7” at 218. On May 31, 2013, Petitioner filed a Central Office Administrative

14

Remedy Appeal. Petition (Doc. 18) at 27. In his appeal, Petitioner explains that although

15

he received the Regional Director’s response on March 19, 2013, he was transferred on

16
17
18
19

March 20, 2013. Id. On July 1, 2013, Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal was denied as
untimely. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 202. It appears that on July 1,
2013, Petitioner resubmitted the Central Office Appeal, which was rejected on July 3,

20
21

2013, reiterating the need to provide staff verification to excuse untimeliness. Id., Exh.

22

“A,” Attach. “7” at 57. On August 19, 2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office

23

Appeal, which was denied on August 29, 2013 due to a lack of staff verification

24
25

regarding the untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 58, 206. On September 27,

26

2013, Petitioner again resubmitted his Central Office Appeal, which was denied on

27

October 17, 2013, because it lacked staff verification regarding its untimeliness. Id., Exh.

28

“A,” Attach. “7” at 61, 205. On November 12, 2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central
- 13 -

1
2

Office Appeal, which was again denied on November 18, 2013, because it lacked staff
verification regarding its untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 62, 204; see also

3
4
5
6

Petition (Doc. 18) at 26. On April 28, 2014, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office
Appeal. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 68. Petitioner’s appeal was
rejected, because “photocopies of the first page of [his] BP-11 form [were] not

7
8
9
10

acceptable.” Id. On June 23, 2014, Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal was accepted.
Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 70. No response was issued. Response
(Doc. 38) at 11.

11
12
13
14
15

D. Incident Report Number 2341527
On August 20, 2012 at approximately 3:00 p.m., CO J. Shoule was working in the
medium security Special Housing Unit (“SHU”).

Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”

Incident Report No. 2341527 (Attach. “10”) at 4. Petitioner and Inmate Velasquez were

16
17
18
19

being held in an upstairs holding cell, so that their cell could be searched for contraband.
Id. After the search, Petitioner and Inmate Velasquez saw contraband that was being
removed from their cell, and Petitioner became aggravated, banging the window of the

20
21

holding cell repeatedly with a food tray, and breaking the sprinkler head, which resulted

22

in flooding the upper and lower levels of the SHU. Id. CO Soule notified the SHU

23

Lieutenant, as well as the plumbing shop, in order to turn off the water, and assess the

24
25

damage.

Id.

CO Soule charged Petitioner with the prohibited act of Destroying

26

Government Property in violation of Code 218. Id. The following day, Lieutenant F.

27

Watts delivered the incident report to Petitioner. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach.

28

“10” at 4–5. Lieutenant Watts also investigated the incident and advised Petitioner of his
- 14 -

1
2

rights.

Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “10” at 5.

During Lieutenant Watts’s investigation,

Petitioner stated that he did not do it. Id. Petitioner did not request any witnesses. Id.

3
4
5
6

Lieutenant Watts forwarded the incident report for further disposition. Id.
On August 24, 2012, the UDC conducted its hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “10”
at 6. At the hearing, Petitioner read his rights, and stated that he understood those rights.

7
8

Id. Petitioner stated that “he did not break the sprinkler system. He has hair and his

9

cellmate is bald-headed.” Id. Based on the severity of the alleged misconduct, the UDC

10

referred the matter to the DHO for final disposition, and if Petitioner was found guilty,

11
12

recommended all appropriate sanctions deemed necessary by the DHO. Id. The UDC

13

also provided Petitioner with a Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO and his

14

rights at that hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach “10” at 7–8. Petitioner indicated that he

15

wished to have a staff representative, as well as a witness, Lieutenant Fleming, at his

16
17
18
19

DHO hearing. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “10” at 8. Later, Petitioner apparently decided
against utilizing a staff representative at the DHO hearing. Id.
On October 10, 2012, Petitioner had a DHO hearing before DHO A. Truex. See

20
21

Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” DHO Report for Incident Report No. 2341527 (Attach.

22

“10”) at 1–3. DHO Truex noted that on August 21, 2012, Case Manager L. Montgomery

23

had advised Petitioner of his rights before the DHO. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “10” at 1. At

24
25

the DHO hearing, Petitioner indicated that he understood his rights, waived his right to a

26

staff representative at the DHO hearing, and requested no witnesses. Id. Petitioner

27

“admitted guilt to breaking a sprinkler head in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) holding

28

cell.” Id. Petitioner declined to make any further statement, and did not submit any
- 15 -

1

documentary evidence. Id.

2

DHO Truex considered the Incident Report and Petitioner’s admission at the DHO

3
4
5
6

hearing to committing the offense. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “10” at 2. DHO Truex also
noted that upon commitment to the BOP, Petitioner participated in the A&O program,
and was advised of BOP rules and regulations, as well as provided an A&O handbook.

7
8

Id.

Accordingly, DHO Truex determined sufficient facts existed to find Petitioner

9

committed the prohibited act of Damaging Life-Safety Devices (Sprinkler Head)

10

Regardless of Financial Value (Code 218). Id. DHO Truex imposed sanctions totaling

11
12

thirty (30) days Disciplinary Segregation, twenty-seven (27) days disallowance of GCT,

13

and ninety (90) days loss of telephone privileges to begin on October 10, 2012. Id. On

14

November 30, 2012, DHO Truex signed the DHO report and it was delivered to

15

Petitioner on December 7, 2012. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “10” at 3.

16
17
18
19

On February 15, 2013, Petitioner filed his Regional Administrative Remedy
Appeal regarding Incident Report Number 2341527. Petition (Doc. 18) at 19; see also
Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 52, 230. On March 7, 2013, Petitioner’s

20
21

Regional Appeal was denied. Petition (Doc. 18) at 18; Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”

22

Attach. “7” at 232, 233.

23

Administrative Remedy Appeal. Petition (Doc. 18) at 17; Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,”

24
25

On May 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a Central Office

Attach. “7” at 54, 219. In his appeal, Petitioner explains that although he received the

26

Regional Director’s response on March 19, 2013, he was transferred on March 20, 2013.

27

Petition (Doc. 18) at 17; Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 219. On June 5,

28

2013, Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal was denied as untimely. Petition (Doc. 18) at
- 16 -

1
2

16; Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 54, 227. It appears that Petitioner
resubmitted his Central Office Appeal on May 31, 2013; however, the reason for its

3
4
5
6

rejection are unclear. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 55. On August 19,
2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office Appeal, which was denied on August 29,
2013 due to a lack of staff verification regarding the untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach.

7
8

“7” at 59, 239. On September 27, 2013, Petitioner again resubmitted his Central Office

9

Appeal, which was denied on October 17, 2013, because it lacked staff verification

10

regarding its untimeliness. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 61, 238. On November 12,

11
12

2013, Petitioner resubmitted his Central Office Appeal, which was again denied on

13

November 18, 2013, because it lacked staff verification regarding its untimeliness. Id.,

14

Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 63, 253. On April 28, 2014, Petitioner resubmitted his Central

15

Office Appeal. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 67. Petitioner’s appeal was

16
17
18
19

rejected, because “photocopies of the first page of [his] BP-11 form [were] not
acceptable.” Id. On June 23, 2014, Petitioner’s Central Office Appeal was accepted.
Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 71. No response was issued. Response

20
21

(Doc. 38) at 13.

22
23

III.

ANALYSIS

24
25

A. Jurisdiction

26

“Federal courts are always ‘under an independent obligation to examine their own

27

jurisdiction,’ . . . and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no

28

jurisdiction.”

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting
- 17 -

1
2

FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603
(1990), overruled in part on other grounds by City of Littleton, Colo. v. Z.J. Gifts D-4,

3
4
5
6

L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004)). “Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence
must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the
manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to §

7
8
9
10
11
12

2241 in the custodial court.” Id. at 864. Therefore, a proper characterization of the
petition is necessary to a determination of jurisdiction. Id.
Here, Petitioner does not claim that the sentencing court imposed an illegal
sentence, rather he seeks relief with respect to disciplinary proceedings while

13

incarcerated at a federal facility. As such, Petitioner is challenging the manner, location

14

or condition of the execution of his sentence. See e.g., Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d

15

349 (1st Cir. 1999) (section 2241 petition is appropriate vehicle to challenge the

16
17
18
19

correctness of a jail-time credit determination, once administrative remedies have been
exhausted); Nettles v. Grounds, — F.3d — (9th Cir. 2015), (habeas relief is available “if
success on the claim would ‘necessarily spell speedier release’ from custody, which . . .

20
21

would include termination of custody, acceleration of the future date of release from

22

custody, or reduction of the level of custody.”) (citing Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521,

23

534–35 & n. 13, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1299 & n. 13, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011)); Tucker v.

24
25

Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (a prisoner’s challenge to the “manner in

26

which his sentence was executed . . . [is] maintainable only in a petition for habeas

27

corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241”); Weinstein v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 902 F.2d

28

1451, 1452 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
- 18 -

1
2

2241 to review a claim by a federal prisoner challenging a decision of the United States
Parole Commission”); Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Habeas

3
4
5
6

corpus jurisdiction is also available for a prisoner’s claims that he has been subjected to
greater restrictions of his liberty, such as disciplinary segregation without due process of
law”). Such a challenge must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court. At

7
8
9
10

the time of filing the Petition, Petitioner was incarcerated at USP – Tucson in Arizona.
Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353
(9th Cir. 1990).

11
12
13
14
15

B. Exhaustion
1. In General
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

18

[28 U.S.C. § 2241] does not specifically require petitioners to exhaust
direct appeals before filing petitions for habeas corpus. [Footnote omitted.]
However, we require, as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust
available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under §
2241.

19

Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds

16
17

20

by Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 126 S.Ct. 2422, 165 L.Ed.2d 323 (2006).

21
22

“The requirement that federal prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before filing a

23

habeas corpus petition was judicially created; it is not a statutory requirement.” Brown v.

24

Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Reno v. Koray,

25
26

515 U.S. 50, 54–55, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 2023–24, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995). “Nevertheless,

27

‘[p]rudential limits like jurisdictional limits and limits on venue, are ordinarily not

28

optional.’” Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007) (alterations in original)
- 19 -

1
2

(quoting Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other
grounds by Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 126 S.Ct. 2422, 165 L.Ed.2d

3
4
5
6

323 (2006)).
“Courts may require prudential exhaustion if ‘(1) agency expertise makes agency
consideration necessary to generate a proper record and reach a proper decision; (2)

7
8

relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative

9

scheme; and (3) administrative review is likely to allow the agency to correct its own

10

mistakes and to preclude the need for judicial review.’” Id. (quoting Noriega-Lopez v.

11
12

Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2003)). “When a petitioner does not exhaust

13

administrative remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition

14

without prejudice or stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies,

15

unless exhaustion is excused.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.

16
17
18
19

2011) (citations omitted). Exhaustion may be excused if pursuing an administrative
remedy would be futile. Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th
Cir. 1993).

20
21

If a prisoner is unable to obtain an administrative remedy because of his failure to

22

appeal in a timely manner, then the petitioner has procedurally defaulted his habeas

23

corpus claim. See Nigro v. Sullivan, 40 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Francis,

24
25

Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570,

26

571 (9th Cir. 1986)). If a claim is procedurally defaulted, the court may require the

27

petitioner to demonstrate cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice from the

28

alleged constitutional violation. See Francis, 894 F.2d at 355 (suggesting that the cause
- 20 -

1
2

and prejudice test is the appropriate test); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 492, 106
S.Ct. 2639, 2647–48, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (cause and prejudice test applied to

3
4
5
6

procedural defaults on appeal); Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 800 F.2d 905,
906–08 (9th Cir. 1986) (cause and prejudice test applied to pro se litigants).
2. BOP Administrative Procedures

7
8

The BOP has established an administrative remedy process permitting an inmate

9

to seek review of an issue relating to “any aspect of his/her own confinement.” 28 C.F.R.

10

§ 542.10(a). Under that process, an inmate seeking to appeal a DHO decision shall

11
12

submit the appeal “initially to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is

13

currently located.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(2). “An inmate who is not satisfied with the

14

Regional Director’s response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-11) to

15

the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the

16
17
18
19

response.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). The deadlines contained within this process may be
extended upon request by the inmate and a showing of a valid reason for delay. 28
C.F.R. § 542.15(a); 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(b). An appeal is considered filed on the date it is

20
21

logged in the Administrative Remedy Index as received. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. Once an

22

appeal is filed, a Regional Director shall respond within 30 days; General Counsel shall

23

respond within 40 calendar days. Id. “If the inmate does not receive a response within

24
25
26
27
28

the time allotted for reply, including extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a
response to be a denial at that level.” Id.
3. Exhaustion in the Instant Case
Here, Respondent avers that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative
- 21 -

1
2

remedies. Response (Doc. 38) at 15. Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner “believes
that he has exhausted his administrative remedies[,]” but asserts that “Petitioner has

3
4
5
6

repeatedly sent administrative remedies to the Central Office without addressing the
defects in the remedies[,] [and] [t]he Central Office has not issued a final decision.” Id.
The Court disagrees with Respondent’s assertion.

7
8

The record shows that on June 23, 2014, each of Petitioner’s Central Office

9

Appeals was accepted. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “7” at 69–71. Moreover,

10

as of November 7, 2014, General Counsel had not responded to any of the appeals.6

11
12

Response (Doc. 38) at 7, 9, 11, 13. “When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative

13

remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or

14

stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is

15

excused.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). In this case,

16
17
18
19

General Counsel had not responded to Petitioner’s BP-11 appeals more than four (4)
months after they were accepted. As such, the Court finds it appropriate to consider “the
absence of a response to be a denial at that level[.]” See Martin v. Fed. Bureau of

20
21

Prisons, 2011 WL 6057608, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“If General Counsel fails to respond

22

within 40 days, the inmate can assume that the appeal was denied and proceed with a

23

lawsuit”). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that:

24
25
26

the requirement of exhaustion of remedies [is to] aid judicial review by
allowing the appropriate development of a factual record in an expert
forum; conserve the court’s time because of the possibility that the relief
applied for may be granted at the administrative level; and allow the

27
28

6

November 7, 2014 is the date that Respondent’s Response was originally lodged with
the Court.

- 22 -

1
2

administrative agency an opportunity to correct errors occurring in the
course of administrative proceedings.

3

Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). In this case, the factual record is

4

adequately developed, and nothing in the record suggests that further administrative

5
6

review would result in any changes. Accordingly, the Court finds the Petitioner’s claims

7

exhausted; however, even if the exhaustion is faulty, it shall be excused and the Court

8

will reach the merits.

9

C. Due Process

10
11

“Due process in a prison disciplinary hearing is satisfied if the inmate receives

12

written notice of the charges, and a statement of the evidence relied on by the prison

13

officials and the reasons for disciplinary action.” Zimmerlee v. Keeny, 831 F.2d 183, 186

14
15

(9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–66, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978–

16

79, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)). Additionally, “[t]he inmate has a limited right to call

17

witnesses and to present documentary evidence when permitting him to do so would not

18
19

unduly threaten institutional safety and goals.”

Id. (citations omitted).

“Prison

20

disciplinary proceedings[, however,] are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full

21

panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings do[] not apply.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at

22

556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975.

23
24

Once the minimal procedural requirements of Wolff are met, the district court must

25

ask “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion

26

reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent, Mass. Corrections Inst. v. Hill, 472

27
28

U.S. 445, 455–56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). “[T]he requirements of

- 23 -

1
2

due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary
board to revoke good time credits.” Id. “Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied

3
4
5
6

does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the
credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.” Id. Indeed, “[t]he standard is
‘minimally stringent’ only requiring ‘any evidence in the record that could support the

7
8
9
10
11
12

conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.’” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th
Cir. 1987) (citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 454–56, 105 S.Ct. at 2774) (emphasis added in Cato).
1. Good Conduct Time
Petitioner asserts that on October 10, 2013, he was found guilty in four

13

separate disciplinary proceedings, and the DHO forfeited twenty-seven (27) days of

14

regular GCT in each case; however, as of that date Petitioner “had no good time credits

15

available for forfiture [sic], therefore, administrative staff illegally forfitted [sic]

16
17
18
19

NONVESTED GOOD TIME CREDITS.” Petition (Doc. 18) at 4 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner further argues that “the DHO is not authorized to forfite [sic] more than 54
days good time credits per calender [sic] year for any 200 series disciplinary case(s) [and]

20
21

consequently, the DHO can not [sic] forfite [sic] 108 days of regular good time or

22

NONVESTED GOOD TIME in these cases because it exceeds the maximum limit

23

allowed by law.” Id. (emphasis in original). Petitioner’s contention that there is a fifty-

24
25
26
27
28

four (54) day annual “limit” on the amount of GCT that an inmate may be disallowed is
incorrect. As such, his claims are without merit and shall be denied.
Section 3625(b), Title 18, of the United States Code governs the timing of federal
prisoners’ release from custody, including their eligibility for good conduct time. This
- 24 -

1
2

section was enacted as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 1987, 18
U.S.C. § 3551 et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§ 991–998 (“SRA”), “a comprehensive law that

3
4
5
6

reformed federal sentencing practice and directed the newly create United States
Sentencing Commission ‘to devise guidelines to be used for sentencing’ in district
courts.” Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 481–82, 130 S.Ct. 2499, 2505, 177 L.Ed.2d 1

7
8

(2010). The SRA was part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (“CCCA”),

9

which repealed the previous statutes governing “good time.” Pub. L. No. 98-473; see

10

also Brown v. McGrew, 2013 WL 6512948, * 4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013) (reviewing

11
12

enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) and amendments thereto). “For inmates serving a

13

sentence for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987, but before September 13,

14

1994, the Bureau will award 54 days credit toward service of sentence (good conduct

15

time credit) for each year served.” 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(a). “This amount is prorated

16
17
18
19

when the time served by the inmate for the sentence during the year is less than a full
year.” Id. “For inmates serving a sentence for offenses committed on or after September
13, 1994, but before April 26, 1996, all yearly awards of good conduct time will vest for

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

inmates who have earned, or are making satisfactory progress . . . toward earning a
General Educational Development (GED) credential.” 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(b).
On April 26, 1996, Section 3624(b) was amended by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”). See PL 104–134, April 26, 1996, 110 Stat 1321. Section 3624(b)
provides in relevant part:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a prisoner who is serving a term of
imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for
the duration of the prisoner’s life, may receive credit toward the service of
- 25 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

the prisoner’s sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end
of each year of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of
the first year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons
that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance
with institutional disciplinary regulations. Subject to paragraph (2), if the
Bureau determines that during that year, the prisoner has not satisfactorily
complied with such institutional regulations, the prisoner shall receive no
such credit toward service of the prisoner’s sentence or shall receive such
lesser credit as the Bureau determines to be appropriate. In awarding credit
under this section, the Bureau shall consider whether the prisoner, during
the relevant period, has earned, or is making satisfactory progress toward
earning, a high school diploma or an equivalent degree. Credit that has not
been earned may not later be granted. Subject to paragraph (2), credit for
the last year or portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall be
prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.
(2) Notwithstanding any other law, credit awarded under this subsection
after the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act shall vest
on the date the prisoner is released from custody.

14

18 U.S.C. § 3624(b); see also 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(c). Unlike previous amendments, GCT

15

awarded to an inmate under the PLRA does not vest under any circumstances until “the

16

date the prisoner is released from custody.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(2). “Thus, under the

17
18

PLRA, all of a prisoner’s cumulative good-conduct time can be taken by the BOP as a

19

sanction for a prison disciplinary action.” Brown, 2013 WL 6512948 at *4 (citing 18

20

U.S.C. § 3624(b)(2); 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(e); Gary v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2010 WL

21
22

1611020, *8 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2010).

23

Here, Petitioner conviction stems from a November 28, 2011 offense. Response

24

(Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Judgment & Commitment 3/6/2012 (Attach. “2”). As such, the

25
26

PLRA applies to his sentence. Each of Petitioner’s violations, BOP Code Nos. 224,

27

224A, and 218, are classified as High Category offenses. 28 C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3.

28

The prison can sanction a prisoner who performs a prohibited act by “[d]isallow[ing]

- 26 -

1
2

ordinarily between 25 and 50% (14–27 days) of good conduct time credit available for [a]
year[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3, High Category, Sanctions B.1. For PLRA inmates

3
4
5
6

committing High Category offenses, Sanction B.1 is mandatory.

28 C.F.R. §

541.13(a)(2). Pursuant to that regulation, the DHO imposed a sanction disallowing 27
days of GCT for each offense. Response (Doc. 38), Exh. “A,” Attach. “6” at 2, Attach

7
8

“8” at 2, Attach. “9” at 2, Attach. “10” at 2.

9

Petitioner has not pointed to any rules, regulations or other authority stating that

10

the DHO could not impose Sanction B.1 to disallow more than fifty-four (54) days of

11
12

GCT in a twelve (12) month period. As noted by the Brown court, “[i]ndeed, such a rule

13

would appear to conflict with the PLRA, which states that good-conduct time does not

14

vest until a prisoner is released from prison, and thus the DHO can sanction a prisoner

15

either by forfeiting good-conduct time that the prisoner has already earned or

16
17
18
19

prospectively disallowing good-conduct time that a prisoner has not yet earned.” Brown,
2013 WL 6512948 at *5 (citations omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Accordingly,
Petitioner’s claim must fail.

20
21

2. Due Process in Petitioner’s Disciplinary Proceedings

22

Petitioner does not allege any other irregularities in his disciplinary proceedings.

23

The record indicates that in each instance, Petitioner received written notice of the

24
25

charges; had the opportunity to call witnesses, present documentary evidence, and have a

26

staff representative; and received a statement of the evidence relied on by the prison

27

officials, and the reasons for disciplinary actions.

28

Furthermore, there is sufficient

evidence to support the decision of the DHO. Accordingly, Petitioner received the
- 27 -

1

requisite due process in his proceedings.

2

D. Conclusion

3
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the due process requirements as

4
5
6

delineated by Wolff were met in this case. Additionally, the Court finds that the DHO
findings were supported by “some evidence” as required by Hill. Petitioner’s contention

7
8
9

regarding the improper disallowance of GCT is without merit. Therefore, the Petitioner’s
Petition (Doc. 18) shall be denied.

10
11
12

IV.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13

Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

14

Motion to Strike (Doc. 51). Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is identical to his

15

reply. As such, if the motion is addressed as a motion for summary judgment on

16
17
18
19

Petitioner’s claims, it is unnecessary and procedurally improper. Habeas proceedings are,
by their nature, presumptively summary proceedings. See Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, Rule 8 (determination whether hearing required) and Rule 1 (rules applicable to §

20
21

2241 proceedings). In light of the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the Petition

22

(Doc. 18) is without merit, and because the motion is procedurally duplicative and

23

unnecessary, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge deny Petitioner’s

24
25

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) as moot.

26

Additionally, Petitioner seeks an Order from this Court striking the good time data

27

sheet because it is fraudulent and or falsified. Petitioner argues inter alia that the vested

28

amount and vested date are both blank “because the good time data sheet is fraudulent or
- 28 -

1
2

falsified.” Mot. for Summ. J. and Mot. to Strike (Doc. 51) at 5. This and Petitioner’s
other contentions regarding the “false” nature of the prison records are based on his

3
4
5
6

misunderstanding of GCT and the prisons ability to forfeit the same under the PLRA.
Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner’s arguments regarding BOP falsifying records to
be without merit, and his motion to strike should be denied.

7
8
9

V.

10
11
12

MOTION TO WAIVE FORM REQUIREMENTS
Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Waiver of Form Requirements (Doc. 58),

seeking leave to “not comply with the basic form requirements of the federal rules of

13

civil procedure or . . . the local court rules that govern the basic form requirements issued

14

by the court.” Mot. for Waiver of Form Requirements (Doc. 58) at 1. Petitioner states

15

that he has lost his prescription glasses in transit, and therefore cannot comply with the

16
17
18
19

Court’s rules. Id. The Court has considered all filings made by Petitioner in reaching its
decision regarding his Petition, and as such Petitioner’s motion is moot. To the extent
that Petitioner seeks to be relieved of responsibility to follow this Court’s procedural

20
21

rules, his motion will be denied. Petitioner has been able to adequately address his

22

claims throughout this litigation. If Petitioner requires additional time or other specific

23

accommodation to file objections to this report and recommendation, he appears capable

24
25

of requesting the same through a motion to the District Court Judge.

26

Petitioner’s Motion for Waiver of Form Requirements (Doc. 58) will be denied.

27

...

28

...
- 29 -

As such,

1

VI.

2

RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons delineated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the

3
4

District Judge enter an order:

5
6

(1)

SUBSTITUTING J.T. Shartle, Warden, as Respondent for Charles E.

Samuels, Jr. pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule

7
8

43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure;
(2)

9
10

a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 18);

11

(3)

DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

(4)

DENYING Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 51); and

(5)

12
13

DENYING Petitioner’s First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for

DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Waiver of Form Requirements (Doc.

51);

14
15
16
17
18
19

58).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after

20
21

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to

22

another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed.

23

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District

24
25
26
27
28

Court. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-140324-TUC-RCC.
Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the
Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. The Clerk of the Court
- 30 -

1
2

shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to all parties.
Dated this 17th day of June, 2015.

3
4
5
6

Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 31 -