FORD V. WARDEN
ENTRY Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Accordingly, Ford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue (SEE ENTRY). Copy sent to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/7/2017.(DW) Modified on 8/7/2017 (DW).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
WARDEN USP TERRE HAUTE,
Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The pleadings and the expanded record in this action for a writ of habeas corpus establish
On March 11, 2016, an incident report was issued in No. 2825870 charging Kelvin
Ford, a federal prisoner, with violating prison rules by Assaulting Any Person (Serious Injury). He
was given a copy of the incident report on that same date and was notified of his procedural rights
in the matter on March 21, 2016.
The charge in No. 2825870 was amended on January 19, 2017 to Assaulting without
A hearing was conducted and upon consideration of the evidence the hearing officer
found that on the evening of February 1, 2016 Ford committed the prohibited act of Assaulting
without Serious Injury.
Upon the finding described above, Ford was sanctioned with the loss of earned
good time and in other respects.
Ford claims in this proceeding that his right to due process was violated in connection with
the disciplinary proceeding described in Part I of this Entry.
“A necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief [to a petitioner] is a
determination by the federal court that [his or her] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
Inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons can challenge the loss of good conduct
credit by way of a petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jackson v. Carlson, 707
F.2d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1983). When a hearing may result in the loss of good conduct time credits,
due process requires that the prisoner receive these protections: 1) written notice of the claimed
violation at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the hearing; 2) an opportunity to call
witnesses and present documentary evidence in his or her defense when doing so would not be
unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; 3) aid in presenting a defense if the
inmate is illiterate or the complexity of the case makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to
collect and present the necessary evidence for an adequate comprehension of the case; 4) an
impartial tribunal; and 5) a written statement by the factfinder as to evidence relied on and reasons
for the disciplinary action. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564–572 (1974). In addition,
there is a substantive component to the issue, which requires that the decision of a conduct board
be supported by “some evidence.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). However, the
“failure to adhere to administrative regulations does not equate to a constitutional violation.”
Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1068 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); Myers v.
Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). While prisoners may
expect prison officials to follow their own procedures, the regulations themselves do not create a
protected liberty interest or define the procedural requirements of due process. Jones v. Cross, 637
F.3d 841, 846 (7th Cir. 2011); Miller v. Henman, 804 F.2d 421, 424–26 (7th Cir. 1986).
Applying the requirements of Wolff and Hill as an analytical template, Ford received all
the process to which he was entitled. That is, the charge was clear, adequate notice was given, and
the evidence was sufficient. In addition, (1) Ford was given the opportunity to appear before the
hearing officer and make a statement concerning the charge, (2) the hearing officer issued a
sufficient statement of his findings, and (3) the hearing officer issued a written reason for the
decision and for the sanctions imposed. Ford’s claims that he was denied the protections afforded
by Wolff and Hill are without merit.
Ford complains that he was unable to file an administrative appeal because he was not
supplied with certain paperwork. However, the action is not being resolved on the basis of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, so Ford has not been prejudiced by whatever
paperwork did not reach him in a timely fashion.
Ford argues that authorities failed to follow various policies before and during the
challenged disciplinary proceeding. These arguments, however, are insufficient to support
the relief he seeks. See Keller v. Donahue, 2008 WL 822255, 271 Fed.Appx. 531, 532 (7th
Cir. Mar. 27, 2008) (in a habeas action, an inmate “has no cognizable claim arising from
the prison’s application of its regulations.”). These arguments are therefore insufficient to
warrant the habeas corpus relief Ford seeks.
Ford complains that that there were irregularities with the unit team committee, but these
are beside the point because it is the decision of and processes with the hearing officer that
either do or do not measure up to the requirements of Wolff.
Ford complains that the deficiencies in the challenged disciplinary proceeding resulted in
a monetary loss of $46.00. However, damages are not available in a habeas action. Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973).
“The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the
government.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary action in any aspect of the charge,
disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions in No. 2825870, and there was no constitutional infirmity
in the proceeding which entitles Ford to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Ford’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
LEWISBURG - USP
LEWISBURG U.S. PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 1000
LEWISBURG, PA 17837
Shelese M. Woods
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
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?