Brown v. Wells
Filing
17
ORDER adopting re 14 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, the petition is Denied, this civil action is Closed and a final judgment shall be Entered in favor of the resp. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 5/27/11. (cmr)
ORIGINAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
FLE0
U.S. DISTR!C1 COURT
uGuS1A OIV.
20 111
MAY 27 PM 3 10
DUBLIN DIVISION
CLIVE BROWN,
So. DIST OF GA.
Petitioner,
V.
CV 310-057
WALT WELLS, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ('R&R"), to which objections have been filed (doc.
no. 16). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the instant petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, be denied. In particular, the Magistrate Judge
reasoned the Petitioner's claim that he was deprived of due process when he was found guilty
of participating in a food boycott that took place on January 28-29, 2009, and stripped of 27
days of Good Conduct Time, was without merit. (Doc. no. 14, pp. 5-8.) The Magistrate
Judge also found that Petitioner's disciplinary conviction was supported by the required level
of'-some evidence." (Id. at 7-8.)
In his objections, Petitioner argues that it has always been his contention that he ate
the evening meal on January 28, 2009, as well as the morning and lunch meals on January
29, 2009, that were the target of food boycott. (Doc. no. 16, p. 2.) However. Petitioner's
explanation in the prior filings he submitted to this Court have conveyed a drastically
different story. Petitioner has thus far indicated to this Court that he did indeed miss the
above-cited meals, but that he did so due to refereeing a game on January 28, and spending
time in the library on January 29. (See doc. no. 1, p. 7; doc. no. 9. p. 1.) However. Petitioner
now asserts that he originally claimed that he ate the meals, and only changed his story after
he was confronted two months afterthe food boycott and asked to explain the fact that he had
missed the three targeted meals.' (Doc. no. 16, p. 3.)
Petitioner goes on to claim that he has now obtained his "Meal Monitoring Records"
through a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, which he alleges proves that he ate
the meals in question. (Id. at 3-4.) The record that Petitioner refers to is a one-page,
i.rnauthenticated printout attached to Petitioner's objections which appears to list meals from
January 14, 2009 through January 30, 2009. (Id. at Ex. A.) Plaintiff provides no further
explanation of what the printout indicates beyond his claim that it proves that he ate the
meals targeted by the food boycott. In addition, Plaintiff fails to provide anything to indicate
that this last-minute piece of "evidence" was indeed obtained via a FOIA request- such as
a letter from the government accompanying the information he requested.
Even assuming that the list does in fact indicate that Petitioner scanned his meal card
during the target meal times, the analysis and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are left
undisturbed. As indicated in the R&R, it is clear that Petitioner was supplied with the due
process required, and this "new piece of evidence" does nothing to alter that conclusion.
(See doc. no. 14, pp. 5-6 (enumerating the four due process requirements as presented in
Petitioner states that he was repeatedly told that he missed the meals on January 25,
2009; however, the meals targeted by the food boycott were on January 28 and 29. (5ee doc.
no. 16, 3.)
2
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974).)
Additionally, Petitioner's Meal Scan Data does not affect the finding of the
Magistrate Judge that "some evidence" supported the decision of the disciplinary hearing
officer ("DHO") that Petitioner was guilty of participating in a group demonstration. (See
doc. no. 14, pp. 7-8.) In reviewing prison disciplinary disputes such as this one, federal
courts cannot retry the disciplinary proceeding; rather they must determine if "any evidence
at all" supports the actions taken by prison officials. (id. at 6-7 (citing Young v. Jones, 37
F.3d 1457, 1460 (1 lth Cir. 1994).) As an initial matter, the mere fact that Petitioner's meal
card may have been scanned during the target meals does not prove that he was physically
present during those meals.
Additionally, even discounting the statement of the DHO that the Meal Plan Data
indicated that Petitioner had not attended the targeted meals, the DHO cited other sources
of evidence that indicated Petitioner's participation in the group demonstration including:
1) a memorandum from the Assistant Chief of Security indicating that only one prisonerwho was not Petitioner- ate the noon meal on January 29; 2) the fact that Petitioner changed
his story from stating that he ate all three meals to claiming that he did not eat any of them
because he was frriig a game on January 28, and in the library on January 29; and 3)
Petitioner's January 29th interview questionnaire which indicated that he refused to attend
the noon meal on January 29, even after being made aware of the boycott and being
instructed to attend the meal. (Id. at 4-5.) Therefore, Petitioner's objection does not disturb
the analysis and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge's R&R and, as such, is OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the petition filed pursuant to § 2241 is
DENIED, this civil action is CLOSED, and a final judgment shall be ENTERED in favor
of Respondent.
SO ORDERED this Lday of
f(eIA/_,
2011, at Augusta, Georgia.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUtGE
4
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?