Ramdeo v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low
Filing
22
ORDER denying 11 Amended Petition and dismissing case with prejudice, with instructions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 12/23/2019. (ACT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
SONNY AUSTIN RAMDEO,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 5:17-cv-503-Oc-34PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW,
Respondent.
________________________________
ORDER
I. Status
Petitioner Sonny Ramdeo, an inmate of the Federal penal system, initiated this
action on October 19, 2017,1 by filing a pro se complaint (Doc. 1). On November 3, 2017,
the Court directed Ramdeo to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 using the court-approved form. See Doc. 5. Ramdeo responded by
filing an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Amended Petition; Doc. 11). In the Amended Petition, Ramdeo challenges a 2017
disciplinary hearing and the resulting punishment. Ramdeo raises three ground for relief.
See Amended Petition at 6-18.2 Respondent has submitted a memorandum in opposition
to the Amended Petition. See Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Response;
Doc. 14) with exhibits (Resp. Ex.) and Supplemental Exhibits (Doc. 17-1; Resp. Supp.
1
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (mailbox rule).
For purposes of reference, the Court will cite the page number assigned by the
Court’s electronic docketing system.
2
Ex.). On April 9, 2019, Ramdeo filed a brief in reply. See Petitioner’s Reply to the
Respondent’s Opposition (Reply; Doc. 14.). This case is ripe for review.
II. Procedural History
On July 9, 2015, the United States District Court Southern District of Florida
sentenced Ramdeo to a term of incarceration of 240 months in prison for the crimes of
wire fraud and money laundering. Resp. Ex. 1. On May 23, 2017, Ramdeo, while in
prison, filed Administrative Remedy 902896-F1 at the institutional level requesting to
remain in his unit during sanitation hours. Resp. Supp. Ex. A. The remedy was rejected
because Ramdeo did not submit his request through a counselor or submit an informal
resolution form prior to submitting a request for Administrative Remedy. Id.
On May 31, 2017, prison staff received Administrative Remedy 902896-F1,
Informal Resolution, and supporting paperwork from Ramdeo via institutional mail. Resp.
Ex. 2. Staff reviewed the Informal Resolution form Ramdeo submitted and discovered the
form contained inaccurate information and that Ramdeo had forged portions of the form
purported to be completed by Counselor Nowicki. Id. Prison officials charged Ramdeo
with counterfeiting or forging any documentation, article of identification, money, or official
paper. Id. Prison officials prepared an Incident Report, number 2994417, detailing these
charges on June 2, 2017, and delivered a copy of that report to Ramdeo on the same
day. Id.
On June 2, 2017, Prison officials began a formal investigation. After advising
Ramdeo of his right to remain silent, an investigator interviewed Ramdeo concerning the
allegations, and Ramdeo stated that, “Yes, I filled out that form, Counselor Nowicki did
not fill in any part of it.” Id. Based on Ramdeo’s statement and other evidence, the
2
investigator determined the charge to be valid and referred the incident report to the Unit
Discipline Committee (UDC) for further action. Id. The UDC held a hearing on June 7,
2017, at which Ramdeo made the following comment:
I received a rejection notice on 5-24-2017 that stated I needed
to submit an informal resolution. The informal resolution form
was completed with the facts, there was no forging because I
was following the instructions on the rejection notice.
Counselor Nowicki delivered the BP9 on 5-23-2107, which
should not have been rejected in the first place.
Id. At the conclusion of the hearing, the UDC found that Ramdeo committed the prohibited
act as charged and advised Ramdeo of its finding and the right to file an appeal within
twenty calendar days. Id. As a sanction, Ramdeo lost commissary access and email
privileges for thirty days. Id. Ramdeo did not submit an appeal within the allotted twentyday period.
On July 25, 2017, Ramdeo filed Administrative Remedy 910066-F1, at the
institutional level requesting the Incident Report be expunged due to staff misconduct.
Resp. Ex. 3. Prison officials rejected as untimely Ramdeo’s Administrative Remedy on
July 26, 2017. Id. Ramdeo filed Administrative Remedy 910066-R1 with the Southeast
Regional Office (SRO) on August 8, 2017, which also rejected it as SRO concurred with
the institution’s rationale for rejection of Administrative Remedy 910066-F1. Id. On
September 19, 2017, Ramdeo filed Administrative Remedy 91066-A1 with the central
office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Id. The central office rejected the
Administrative Remedy for raising multiple issues and because they concurred with the
SRO and institution’s rejection of Administrative Remedy 910066-F1. Id. The central
office advised Ramdeo that he could resubmit his Administrative Remedy at the
institutional level if staff provided a memo stating late filing was not his fault. Id. Ramdeo
3
did not file any additional Administrative Remedies regarding Incident Report number
2994417. Id.
III. Governing Legal Principles
A. Standard of Review
Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and,
therefore, the full panoply of rights that are due a defendant in a criminal proceeding do
not apply in prison disciplinary proceedings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556,
94 S. Ct. 2963, 2975 (1974). However, inmates are entitled to some due process
protections. Id. Those protections include: (1) written notice of the charges at least 24
hours before a hearing to enable the inmate to prepare a defense; (2) an opportunity to
call witnesses and present documentary evidence if doing so is not an undue hazard to
institutional safety; and (3) a written explanation of the evidence relied on and reasons
for disciplinary actions. Id. On the other hand, an inmate does not have a right to
confrontation and cross-examination, or a right to counsel. Id. at 567, 570.
Additionally, disciplinary decisions comport with the requirements of procedural
due process when there is “some evidence” to support the disciplinary decision by the
fact finder. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). In other
words, the relevant question is whether “any evidence” supports the conclusion reached
by the prison officials. Id. at 455-56; Young v. Jones, 37 F.3d 1347, 1460 (11th Cir. 1994).
Notably, the scope of this Court’s review of prison disciplinary actions is limited. Hill, U.S.
at 455-56; Young, 37 F.3d at 1460. It does not require an examination of the “entire
record” or reweighing the evidence. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56. “The clear implication of Hill
4
is that courts are not to conduct exhaustive reviews of findings of prison disciplinary
panels.” O’Bryant v. Finch, 637 F.3d 1207, 1214 (11thCir. 2011).
B. BOC Disciplinary Proceedings
Prison officials “implement disciplinary proceedings that may, at most, change the
conditions of the inmates’ confinement for purposes of maintaining institutional order and
encouraging compliance with prison rules.” U.S. v. Mayes, 158 F.3d 1215, 1224 (11th Cir.
1998). In this regard, prison staff may write an Incident Report “when staff witness or
reasonably believe” that an inmate committed a prohibited act. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). An
investigation then begins and the inmate must be given a written Incident Report. 28
C.F.R. § 541.5(b). The investigator also must inform the inmate of his or her rights. Id.
Once the investigation is complete, the UDC reviews the Incident Report at which
time the inmate is permitted to appear before the UDC. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. “The UDC’s
decision will be based on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the
greater weight of the evidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (e). If the matter is referred to a
Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO), the UDC advises the inmate of his rights at the DHO
hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(g).
At the DHO hearing, the inmate is permitted to be represented by staff and to
request witnesses to appear to testify on the inmate’s behalf. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8. The DHO
considers all evidence presented and the decision must “be based on at least some facts
and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.” 28 C.F.R. §
541.8(f). The DHO is required to provide written findings explaining the basis for the
disciplinary action and the inmate’s right to appeal. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539
(1974) (outlining specific hearing procedures to satisfy standards of procedural due
5
process in prison setting); 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h), (i). An inmate may appeal the DHO’s
actions through the Administrative Remedy Program. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(i).
C. Exhaustion of BOP Administrative Remedies
There are prerequisites to federal habeas review. While exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional requirement in § 2241 proceedings, a
petitioner seeking habeas relief is still subject to the administrative exhaustion
requirements. Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 474-75 (11th Cir. 2015). Indeed,
courts cannot “disregard a failure to exhaust . . . if the respondent properly asserts the
defense.” Id. at 475.
In order for a petitioner to properly exhaust a claim under § 2241, the inmate must
follow the BOP procedures regarding Administrative Remedies. See Davis v. Warden,
FCC Coleman-USP I, 661 F. App’x 561, 562 (11th Cir. 2016). The BOP Administrative
Remedy Program allows an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any
aspect of his or her confinement. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(a). Prior to submitting a Request for
Administrative Remedy, an inmate must first informally present the issue to institutional
staff to attempt to informally resolve the issue. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). Thereafter, the
inmate may submit an Administrative Remedy Request. The completion of the informal
resolution process and submission of a formal written Administrative Remedy Request
must be accomplished within twenty calendar days following the date on which the basis
for the Administrative Remedy Request occurred. 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a).
An inmate may appeal a Warden’s response to an Administrative Remedy Request
to the appropriate Regional Director within twenty days of the date the Warden signed the
response. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). If the inmate seeks to appeal the Regional Director’s
6
decision, the inmate must submit an appeal to the General Counsel within thirty days of
the date the Regional Director signed the response. Id. “Appeal to the General Counsel
is the final administrative appeal.” Id. Notably, “a Request or Appeal is considered filed
on the date it is logged into the Administrative Remedy Index as received.” 28 C.F.R. §
542.18.
IV. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
In the Amended Petition, Ramdeo raises three grounds for relief challenging
Incident Report Number 2994417: (1) Respondent denied him procedural due process
when prison staff misconduct resulted in the denial of his access to the Administrative
Remedy Program to seek review of his disciplinary proceeding, Amended Petition at 6-7,
15-16; (2) Ramdeo seeks declaratory judgment that “submit” or “submission” as utilized
in the Federal Code of Regulations section regarding the Administrative Remedy Program
mean “the date it is placed in prison official’s hands and or the date it is placed in the
prison mailbox system,” id. at 7, 17; and (3) Ramdeo requests injunctive relief enjoining
Respondent from continuing a pattern of allegedly unlawful conduct. Id. Respondent
contends that Ramdeo failed to properly exhaust these claims and, even if exhausted,
they are not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 because the
claims do not alter the fact or duration of his confinement. Response at 3-6.
A. Exhaustion
The UDC rendered its final decision regarding Incident Report Number 2994417
on June 7, 2017. Resp. Ex. 2. Ramdeo had twenty days to appeal this decision. See 28
C.F.R. § 542.14(a). He did not do so. On July 25, 2017, more than twenty days after the
UDC rendered its decision, Ramdeo filed Administrative Remedy 910066-F1, in which he
7
alleged, as he does in his Amended Petition, staff misconduct regarding Incident Report
Number 2994417. Resp. Ex. 3. The institution rejected Ramdeo’s Administrative Remedy
request as untimely and his subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. Id. Based on this
record, Ramdeo failed to timely file an Administrative Remedy Request and, therefore,
he failed to properly exhaust his claims concerning Incident Report Number 2994417.
Accordingly, the claim in Amended Petition is due to be denied as unexhausted.
B. Cognizability of Ramdeo’s Claims
A petition for writ of habeas corpus “traditionally ‘has been accepted as the specific
instrument to obtain release from [unlawful] confinement.’” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.
74, 79 (2005) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973)). A petition for writ
of habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle in which to challenge prison conditions.
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (defining the core of habeas corpus as
challenges to the fact, duration, or nature of confinement). Rather, a civil rights complaint
is the appropriate course of relief for a prisoner “who is making a constitutional challenge
to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser, 411
U.S. at 499; see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
Concerning his claim in Ground One regarding lack of procedural due process
during Administrative Remedy proceedings, the record reflects that Respondent did not
take away gain time, instead only taking away privileges regarding access to the
commissary and to email. Therefore, Ramdeo’s claim in Ground One does not challenge
the fact, duration, or nature of his confinement. Likewise, Ramdeo’s claims for declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief are not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas proceeding as they
8
would not change the fact, duration, or nature of his confinement. As such, Ramdeo’s
claims for relief in the Amended Petition are not cognizable under § 2241. See Wilkinson,
544 U.S. at 79; Heck, 512 U.S. 477; see also Tejeda v. Johns, No. 5:15-CV-2, 2016 WL
3546379, at *3 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:15CV-2, 2016 WL 3963931 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2016) (concluding Tejeda could not proceed
under § 2241 because the alleged loss of commissary and phone privileges was a
challenge to the conditions of Tejeda’s confinement, not to the fact or duration of that
confinement). To the extent Ramdeo objects to the conditions of his confinement, his
avenue for relief is through the filing of a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).3 In light of the above, Ramdeo
is not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of the claims raised in his Amended Petition.
Therefore, it is now
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
The Amended Petition (Doc. 11) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
3
The Court notes that Bivens claims raised in Florida Federal District Courts are
subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Moore v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 553
F. App’x 888, 890 (11th Cir. 2014). As the alleged misconduct occurred in 2017, Ramdeo
still has sufficient time to file a civil rights complaint should he choose.
9
2.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying the Amended Petition
and dismissing this case with prejudice, close this case, and terminate any pending
motions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this 23rd day of December, 2019.
Jax-8
C:
Sonny Austin Ramdeo #80568-053
counsel of record
10
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?