Jefferies v. Snyder-Norris
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER; 1) Jefferies petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED 2) Court will enter an appropriate judgment 3) matter is STRICKEN from active docket. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 10/13/15.(SMT)cc: COR, Jefferies via USMail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND
RONALD JEFFERIES,
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
JODIE L. SNYDER-NORRIS,
Warden,
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 15-CV-035-HRW
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANDORDER
Respondent.
***** ***** ***** *****
Ronald Jefferies is an inmate confined in the Federal Correctional Institution
at Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding prose, Jefferies has filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2241, seeking the expungement of a
disciplinary conviction and the restoration of 40 days of good conduct time credit
to his prison sentence. [R. I] Jefferies has paid the requisite $5.00 filing fee. [R. 3]
The Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App'x 544, 545 (6th Cir.
2011). The Court must deny the petition "if it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to
§ 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule !(b)). The Comi evaluates Jefferies' petition
under a more lenient standard because he is not represented by an attorney.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573
(6th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the Court accepts the petitioner's factual allegations
as true, and his legal claims are liberally construed in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Because Jefferies' conviction is supported by some evidence, the Court
concludes that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks and will dismiss his § 2241
petition. The rationale for this decision is set out below.
BACKGROUND
I.
Disciplinary Charge, Conviction, and Administrative Appeals
On July 30, 2010, Jefferies was an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution located at Talladega, Alabama ("FCI-Talladega"). On that day, a major
disturbance/riot occurred at the prison.
At the completion of a lengthy
investigation following this disturbance, on September 7, 2010, Jefferies was
charged with the Possession of a Weapon, a Code 104 violation. [R. 1-1]. The
incident report charging that violation states, as follows:
On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 2:00p.m., an investigation was
completed which determined that you participated in a major
disturbance on July 30, 2010, by assaulting another person.
Specifically, you were observed on surveillance cameras with a
sharpened instrument in your right hand. As the assault on inmate
Joseph Jones, Reg. No. 42214-007 by inmate Crawford, Reg. No.
97072-020 and inmate Welch, 05985-003 continued to C-Range, you
proceeded quickly to that range and administered a number of quick
2
strikes to imnate Jones body stabbing him with the sharpened
instrument in your right hand. As a result of this assault, inmate Jones
received abrasions to his neck, chest, face, and forehead, as well as,
seven (7) puncture wounds in multiple areas.
[R. 1-1).
By the time Jefferies was charged with this offense, he had been transferred
to the Federal Correctional Institution located in Yazoo City, Mississippi ("FCIYazoo City"). The Incident Report issued at FCI-Talladega was sent to FCI-Yazoo
City for processing. Jefferies received a copy of this Incident Report at FCI-Yazoo
City on September 13,2010, at 11:20 a.m. [R. 1-1].
This matter was referred to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") for
hearing, which was conducted on November 23, 2010, at 7:40a.m. [R. 1-2, p. 1].
Jefferies appeared at the DHO hearing, along with his staff representative,
Lieutenant J. Hutchins, who was appointed to assist Jefferies in this matter. ld.
Jefferies stated that he was ready to proceed, that he understood his rights before
the DHO, and that he had received his copy of the Incident Report. I d. Jefferies
had requested three witnesses to appear in his defense. One of his three witnesses,
Karee Sapp, appeared and testified in Jefferies' defense, stating that Jefferies had
nothing to do with the incident.
The other two witnesses Jefferies had
ld.
requested, Sean Crawford and Frank Welch, did not appear at the DHO hearing.
Jefferies waived the in-person testimony of these two witnesses, as the DHO
explained in detail in his report, as follows:
3
Inmate Jefferies agreed to waive in person testimony of two of his
requested witnesses (Crawford and Welch), provided the DHO would
stipulate and consider that their testimony would state that he (inmate
Jefferies), was innocent ofthe charge ofpossession of a weapon. The
DHO acknowledges that both would state that inmate Jefferies was
not involved in the fight that took place on July 30, 2010, at 8:05p.m.,
at FCI Talledga and that he did not have a weapon.
It is noted that all of inmate Jefferies requested witnesses have been
housed in the cell adjacent to him for weeks and would have had
ample time to discuss their testimony. The DHO also believes that it
would have been unlikely, that imnate Jefferies requested witnesses
would have provided testimony favorable to the reporting staff
member.
[R. 1-2, p. 2].
Jefferies denied the charge of Possession of a Weapon. He stated, "I was not
holding a knife. It wasn't me. They got the wrong inmate. I would like the video
tape to be saved." I d.
In addition to the Incident Report, the DHO also considered the SIS
investigative report, the testimony of Jefferies and Karee Sapp at the DHO hearing,
and the e-mails from Robeti McQueen, Case Manager, and Robert Rowan, Unit
Counselor, dated November 12, 2010. !d. The DHO summarized what transpired
at the DHO hearing, and the reasons for his findings in Section V. of his report, as
follows:
It is noted that DHO was done for FCI Talledga, due to imnate
Jefferies, who is currently designated at FCI Talledga, being housed at
FCC Yazoo City. The Incident Report was written on September 7,
2010, and then mailed to FCC Yazoo City. The Incident Report
arrived on September 13, 2010, and was then issued to inmate
4
Jefferies. Hence the reason for the Incident Report being issued
beyond the recommended 24 hour time frame.
The DHO finds that on July 30, 2010, at or about 8:05 p.m., you
committed the prohibited act of Possession of a Weapon, Code 104.
The DHO relied on the written report fi·om SIS Lieutenant who stated
an investigation was completed which determined that you
participated in a major disturbance. Specifically, you were observed
on surveillance cameras with a sharpened instrument (shank) in your
right hand.
In your defense, you deny the charge of Possession of a Weapon.
You stated to the DHO, "I was not holding a knife. It wasn't me.
They got the wrong inmate. I would like the video tape to be saved."
The DHO considered the SIS Investigative report which stated during
review of the surveillance cameras from Sigma B Unit, you were
observed by Robert McQueen, Case Manager, Robe1i Rowan,
Counselor, Allen Harris, Unicor Foreman, and James Preston, SIS
Lieutenant, to be carrying what appeared to be a 'shank' in your right
hand. It further stated that you keep the weapon close to your right
side and proceeded to C-range.
The DHO contacted Robert McQueen, Case Manager, and Robert
Rowan, Counselor, and asked them if they positively identified you
with a shank. They both verified that they positively identified you
carrying a shank.
Your staff representative, J. Hutchins, Lieutenant, was present. He
was asked during your hearing if he wanted to make a statement, and
he stated, "I have spoken with inmate Jefferies several times
concerning his charge."
The DHO also considered your witnesses' statement. All three of
your requested witnesses stated that you were not involved in the
incident.
Although your witnesses' statements were suppmiive, the DHO found
the staff member's statement more credible as the DHO believes they
5
may not have revealed their entire knowledge of the incident, in order
to suppmi you against the charges of the staff member.
The DHO believes that you committed the prohibited act of Code 104.
The decision was based on the written report from SIS Lieutenant
who stated an SIS Investigation was completed, which determined
that you participated in a major disturbance. Specifically, you were
observed on surveillance cameras with a sharpened instrument
(shank), in your right hand. The DHO notes that four staff members
verified (via video surveillance), that it was in fact you, holding a
shank during the fight that took place at FCI Talladega, on July 30,
2010. Weapons can only be used for illegal purposes and therefore,
cannot and will not be tolerated.
Accordingly, it is the finding of the DHO that you committed the
prohibited act as charged.
[R. 1-2, pp. 3-4].
DHO Mark Gennaro imposed the following sanctions:
60 days of
Disciplinary Segregation; disallowance of 40 days Good Conduct Time; and
Recommend Disciplinary Transfer. [R. 1-2, p. 4]. The DHO's report was issued
on November 24, 2010, and reflects that it was delivered to Jefferies on December
1, 2010, at 3:00p.m. Id.
Jefferies states that he appealed the DHO's decision to the BOP's Southwest
Regional Office on December 14, 2010, and that his appeal was rejected because
(1) he had failed to complete Part A of the BP-10 form, and (2) not all pages of the
BP-I 0 form were legible. Jefferies states that he corrected and resubmitted the BP10 form on January 15, 2011. [R. 1-4, p. 2]. Apparently, while Jefferies' appeal
was pending at the Regional Office, he was transferred to FCI-Lompoc. Id.
6
Jefferies' habeas petition is unaccompanied by a copy of the decision of the
BOP's Regional Office on his appeal of his disciplinary conviction. However,
since Jefferies later appealed this disciplinary conviction to the BOP's Central
Office, the Comi presumes that the BOP's Regional Office denied his appeal. On
January 8, 2014, the Central Office rejected Jefferies' appeal because (1) he did not
sign the appeal, (2) he did not include a copy of his BP-10 submitted to the
Regional Office and the Regional Office's response of the BP-10 with his appeal,
and (3) his appeal was untimely, having been submitted more 30 days after the
denial of his appeal to the Regional Office. [R. 1-4]. However, Jefferies was
afforded the opportunity to resubmit his appeal to the Central Office and to provide
a memorandum from prison staff explaining the reason for the untimely appeal to
the Central Office. !d. Jefferies resubmitted his appeal to the Central Office, but
on April 21, 2014, it was rejected because he failed to include a copy of his BP-I 0
filed with the Regional Office and a copy of the Regional Office's response to his
BP-1 0. [R. 1-5]. The Central Office gave him fifteen days in which to resubmit his
appeal with the omitted documentation. !d. Based on the attachments to Jefferies'
petition, there is no indication that Jefferies cured this deficiency and resubmitted
his appeal to the Central Office. However, out of an abundance of caution, the
Court will presume that Jefferies has fully exhausted his administrative remedies
and will proceed to review this petition on the merits.
7
II.
Claims Asserted in § 2241 Petition
As grounds for his petition, Jefferies claims that he did not receive a copy of
the DHO's report until August of 2013, long after the time for appealing had
expired, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charged
offense. [R. 1, p. 3].
DISCUSSION
Prisoners sanctioned with the loss of Good Time Credit ("GTC") are entitled
to some due process protection. Woljfv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, (1974)
("there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives
and the provisions of the Constitution"). The due process to which a prisoner is
entitled includes: written notice of the charges at least 24 hours before a hearing to
enable the inmate to prepare a defense; to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence if doing so is not an undue hazard to institutional safety, and a written
explanation of the evidence relied on and reasons for disciplinmy action. !d.
The essence of Jefferies' claim is that he was misidentified on the videotape
as the inmate who assaulted another inmate during a prison riot and that the object
he was carrying in his right hand was a trash bag, not the shank as he was accused
of carrying.
Consequently, he contends that he was wrongly convicted of the
charged offense and erroneously sanctioned for that offense, requiring a reversal of
the sanctions.
8
Jefferies' argument ignores the fact that pursuant to Superintendent, Mass.
Carr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), a disciplinary conviction must be upheld
as consistent with due process as long as there is "some evidence" to support the
decision. Id. at 454-55.
"Some evidence," as its name suggests, is a lenient
standard. See Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
In this case, there was "some" evidence to support Jefferies' disciplinary
conviction. That evidence consisted of the September 7, 2010, Incident Report,
issued at the completion of the investigation of a prison riot that occurred on July
30, 2010, in which SIS Lieutenant James Preston charged Jefferies with the
Possession of a Weapon, a Code 104 violation, on July 30, 2010, while
participating in a prison riot, and assaulting another inmate, Joseph Jones.
In
addition to the SIS Investigative report, the evidence also consisted of videotapes
from surveillance cameras in Jefferies' unit, Sigma B Unit. From these videotapes,
Jefferies was identified by Robert McQueen, Case Manager; Robert Rowan,
Counselor; Allen Harris, Unicor Foreman, and James Preston, SIS Lieutenant, as
the person carrying what appeared to be a 'shank' in his right hand. In considering
this matter, the DHO repmied that he contacted Robert McQueen, Case Manager,
and Robert Rowan, Counselor, about this charge against Jefferies. In response to
the DHO's inquiry, McQueen and Rowan "positively identified" Jefferies on the
videotapes as the person carrying the shank. [R. 1-2, p. 3]
9
Although the Incident Report, the SIS Investigative Report, the videotapes,
and the statements of prison officials Robert McQueen, Case Manager, and Robert
Rowan, Counselor, who
positively identified Jefferies as the person in the
videotapes who was carrying a weapon, are not complete evidence of guilt, and
although Jefferies disputes the charge contained in the Incident Report, DHO
Gennaro was free to assign greater weight to the Incident Report, the SIS
Investigative Report,
and the reports from prison officials who positively
identified Jefferies as the person in the videotapes, than he assigned to Jefferies'
evidence, viz., the testimony from inmate Karee Sapp favorable to Jefferies, the
other two inmates who would have offered similar favorable testimony to Jefferies,
and Jefferies own claim that he was simply misidentified in the videotapes and that
he was not carrying a weapon, but a trash bag. DHO Gennaro did just that, and in
doing so, he did not violate Jefferies' right to due process of law.
A district court has no authority under the guise of due process either to
review the resolution of factual disputes in a disciplinary decision, to weigh the
credibility of the witnesses, to second-guess the DHO or to substitute its judgment
for that of the DHO. So long as there is "some evidence" to support the DHO's
finding, the Comi is obligated to uphold the DHO's decision. The role of the
district court is to ensure that the disciplinary decision is not arbitrary and does
have evidentiary support. Superintendent, 472 U.S. at 457. Even meager proof is
10
sufficient under the "some evidence" standard. Webb, 224 F.3d at 652. "[T]he full
panoply of rights due a defendant [in a criminal prosecution] does not apply" with
regard to inmate disciplinary hearings. [!d.]
Thus, the Incident Report, the SIS Investigative Report, the statements from
prison officials Robert McQueen, Case Manager, and Robert Rowan, Counselor,
who positively identified Jefferies as the person in the videotapes who was
carrying a weapon, constituted "some" evidence upon which DHO Gennaro could
reasonably rely in finding Jefferies guilty of the charged offense. Jefferies did
receive due process and received all the process to which he was due, as there was
"some evidence" to support the decision to find him guilty of the Code I 04
violation, and the sanctions imposed are commensurate with that offense. See
Cosgrove v. Rios, No. 7:08-CV-109-KKC, 2008 WL 4706638, at *4 (E.D. Ky.
Oct. 21, 2008) (finding that DHO's review of reports and memoranda constituted
"some evidence" and was enough to suppmi the finding of guilt, imposition of
sanctions, and revocation of the inmate's GTC).
Concerning Jefferies' claim that he was denied due process by the untimely
receipt of the DHO's report in August of 2013, resulting in his inability to appeal
his conviction, the Comi finds Jefferies' argument unpersuasive for the following
reasons. First, The DHO repmi itself states that it was delivered to Jefferies on
December 1, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. [R. 1-2, p. 4]. Second, the fact that Jefferies
11
appealed his disciplinary conviction to the Regional Office on January 13, 2011,
[R. 1-5, pp. 4-5], refutes Jefferies' claim that he did not receive the DHO's report
until August of 2013, after the time for
appeal had expired.
Following the
Regional Office's denial of Jefferies' appeal, he appealed his conviction to the
Central Office, and after it was rejected, he was given the opportunity to resubmit
the appeal. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that Jefferies' due process
rights were not violated.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Ronald Jefferies' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus [R. I] is DENIED.
2.
The Comi will enter an appropriate judgment.
3.
This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.
This 13 111 day of October, 2015.
.~·~
f~\ Signed By:
~ Henrv R. Wl!hnlt. Jr.
\fiiiiii.I#'JI
12
United etatea Dletrlot .Judge
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?