Woolridge v. Bureau of Prisons

Filing 6

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. In light of the impending transfer and outdate for the petitioner all deadlines and handling for this case shall be expedited. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 3/5/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSHUA TODD WOOLRIDGE,
No. 25799-045,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 15-cv-156-DRH

BUREAU of PRISONS
(at FCI-Greenville),
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner, currently incarcerated in the FCI-Greenville, Illinois, brings this
habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the execution of
his sentence. Specifically, he seeks restoration of 41 days of good conduct credit
which was revoked when he was found guilty of a disciplinary infraction in
January 2015.
Petitioner filed this action on February 12, 2015 (Doc. 1). On March 2,
2015, he filed a “notice of motion to legally update the court of a legal response
from the warden” (Doc. 5), which was docketed as a motion.

Insofar as this

motion seeks to inform the Court of the specific dates of petitioner’s projected
release in light of the revoked good conduct credits, the motion (Doc. 5) is
Page 1 of 5

GRANTED.
Prior to the disciplinary infraction, petitioner had been scheduled for
release to a halfway house (Residential Re-entry Center) on March 10, 2015, and
for release from custody on September 5, 2015 (Doc. 5, p. 2). However, due to
the 41-day revocation, his halfway house transfer was moved back to April 14,
2015, and his release date delayed to October 11, 2015. Id.
The disciplinary action was brought after a homemade weapon was found
behind a light fixture in the cell petitioner shared with two other inmates (Doc. 1,
p. 3). All three of the cell’s occupants were found guilty, despite the fact that one
of petitioner’s cellmates confessed that the weapon belonged to him. Petitioner
asserts that he was denied due process in the disciplinary proceeding. He knew
nothing about the weapon, and he was found guilty on the theory of “constructive
possession,” merely because the item was found in a common area of the cell. He
further claims that his due process rights in the disciplinary hearing were violated
because he was denied a “staff witness” to assist him (Doc. 1, p. 4).

Finally,

during the hearing, even though the cellmate had confessed, the presiding officer
told petitioner that “I am going to find you all three guilty of this infraction[.] This
is the way we do it here at Greenville” (Doc. 1, p. 5).
In

consideration of the

hearing

officer’s

statement, the

cellmate’s

confession, and the lack of direct evidence of petitioner’s knowledge or actual
possession of the weapon, petitioner presents a due process challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence that precludes dismissal of the petition at this time.

Page 2 of 5

See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985)
(revocation of good conduct credits must be supported by “some evidence” in
order to satisfy due process concerns); Austin v. Pazera, __ F.3d __, No. 14-2574,
2015 WL 710356 (7th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015); Grandberry v. Smith, 754 F.3d 425,
426 (7th Cir. 2014).
Without commenting on the merits of petitioner’s claims, the Court
concludes that the petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4 and Rule
1(b) 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts.
A separate order shall be entered to address petitioner’s pending motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action (Doc. 3).
Petitioner has named the Bureau of Prisons (FCI-Greenville) as the
respondent in this action. However, in a habeas corpus proceeding, the proper
respondent is the prisoner’s custodian; in other words, the warden of the prison
where the inmate is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (an application for a writ of
habeas corpus shall name the person who has custody over the applicant);

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442, 447 (2004); Kholyavskiy v. Achim, 443
F.3d 946, 948-49 (7th Cir. 2006); Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 189, 190 (7th Cir.
1996).
Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the Bureau of Prisons as
the respondent in this action, and add the Warden, FCI-Greenville as the
respondent. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21; FED. R. CIV. P. 17(d).
1

Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus
cases.
Page 3 of 5

In any future documents filed in this case, petitioner shall identify the
Warden by his proper name.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer or otherwise
plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered (on or before April 6,
2015). 2

This preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the

Government from raising any objection or defense it may wish to present. Service
upon the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri
Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this
cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for further
pre-trial proceedings.
In light of the impending transfer and outdate for the petitioner all
deadlines and handling for this case shall be expedited.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to
United States Magistrate Judge Proud for disposition, as contemplated by Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a

referral.
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and
each opposing party) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the
pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later
2

The response date ordered herein is controlling. Any date that CM/ECF should generate in the
course of this litigation is a guideline only. See SDIL-EFR 3.
Page 4 of 5

than seven (7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to
provide such notice may result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 5th day of March, 2015.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.03.05
09:01:08 -06'00'
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5