Adames v. Edenfield et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ORDERED (1) Pla's constitution claims arising under Bivens, including claim for compensatory damages, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to refile under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and the Bivens doctrine; (2) the Warden to file response to Adames' claim that his due process rights were violated; (3) Clerk prepare docs for service of process upon Adames' custodian, Francisco Quintana, Warden, FMC; (4) Clerk prepare " ;Service Packet" for USA; (5) Clerk copy docs of above-described; (6) Deputy Clerk present Service Packets & copies to USM; (7) USMS personally serve Rspt, Francisco Quintana, Warden; (8) JSMS complete service upon US Atty EDKY, US Atty Gen & Fe deral BOP; (9) Petitioner SHALL (a) immediately advise Clerk of any change in current mailing address, (b) Communicate with court solely through notices or motions filed with Clerk's Office Court; (c) in every notice, motion or paper filed, certify in writing that he has mailed copy to every dft (or attorney) & state date of mailing. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 10/31/2012.(DAK)cc: Pro Se Pla(via US Mail); Service Packets to USM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
SANTOS ADAMES,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
****
****
Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-424-KSF
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
****
****
Santos Adames is an inmate currently confined in the Federal Medical Center in Lexington,
Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, Adames has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Adames’ petition challenges a
prison disciplinary conviction arising out of an incident on October 11, 2009, when he was
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Big Spring, Texas. Adames contends that the
conviction violated his due process rights and seeks a court order expunging the conviction, vacating
the sanctions imposed, and directing the BOP to restore his forfeited good time credits. Adames also
seeks a reprimand against all BOP staff involved; an order transferring him to an institution closer
to his home; an order compelling the BOP to provide him with needed medical care; an investigation
regarding racial discrimination; and $3.5 million in compensatory damages.
The Court conducts a preliminary 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). Because the
petitioner is not represented by an attorney, the petition is reviewed under a more lenient standard.
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). Once
that review is complete, the Court may deny habeas relief “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 Section 2241 petitions pursuant to
Rule 1(b)). Otherwise, the Court may resolve the petition as law and justice require. Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987).
The extensive record of Adames’ conviction and his appeals of it include three different
disciplinary convictions from the same Incident Report (#1929047), with contradictory sanctions,
and involve four different Administrative Remedies (##579906, 599000, 609544, and 628283). As
a result, the administrative record is confused and replete with administrative and clerical errors,
perhaps created in part by (1) the manner in which each of his administrative appeals were processed,
and (2) his transfer from FCI-Big Spring, where the incident report originated and where his original
disciplinary hearing was held, to FCI-Williamsburg, where a rehearing of this same incident report
was conducted, followed by yet a third disciplinary hearing, yielding inconsistent findings and
sanctions. For these reasons, as more fully explained below, the warden will be directed to respond
to Adames’ habeas petition.
BACKGROUND
A.
The first conviction
On October 11, 2009, while Adames was an inmate at FCI-Big Spring, his Case Manager,
L. Patton, a female prison employee, reported that Adames grabbed her by the head and attempted
to kiss her. He was charged in Incident Report #1929047 with sexual assault, a Code 101 offense.
2
Although Adames maintains that prior to the disciplinary hearing, he never received a copy of this
incident report, the face of the incident report reflects that it was delivered to Adames on two
different dates, October 14 and October 16, 2009, more than three days after staff became aware of
the alleged incident. It also reflects that he refused to participate in the Uniform Disciplinary
Committee (“UDC”) hearing, and that the UDC referred the charge to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(“DHO”) for hearing, which was conducted on November 19, 2009. At the DHO hearing, Adames
stated that he patted Patton on the shoulder and called her Jacobsen, but he denied assaulting her.
After considering all of the evidence, DHO Gilbreath issued a report on January 29, 2010, finding
Adames guilty of a Code 224 violation, a less severe offense. As sanctions, the DHO ordered
Adames to spend 30 days in disciplinary segregation, disallowed 27 days of his Good Conduct Time,
revoked his privileges to the commissary and visitation for 180 days, and recommended a
disciplinary transfer to another prison.
Adames appealed his conviction in Administrative Remedy #579906. On June 7, 2010, the
Regional Director remanded the conviction for no stated reason and directed the DHO to conduct
a rehearing. By that time, Adames had been transferred to the Federal Correctional InstitutionWilliamsburg in Salters, South Carolina, where this rehearing would be conducted.
B.
The second conviction
To comply with the remand order from his appeal of the first conviction, Adames received
another copy of Incident Report #1929047. [R. 1-1, p. 28] He appeared before the UDC on July 1,
2010, stating that his due process rights had been violated and that he had already been sanctioned.
Id. The DHO conducted a rehearing on July 7, 2010. After considering all of the evidence, DHO
Comstock issued a report on July 9, 2010, as amended on September 1, 2010, finding Adames guilty
3
of a Code 224 offense, Assaulting Any Person (minor) and, except for the recommended disciplinary
transfer, imposed the same sanctions, that were imposed in the original DHO report on January 29,
2010. DHO Comstock also made these sanctions retroactively applicable to the date they were
originally imposed. [R. 1-1, pp. 41-43]
Adames appealed this second conviction in Administrative Remedy ## 599000 and 609544.
C.
The third conviction
While Adames was appealing his second conviction, he was prosecuted a third time for the
same Code 101 offense charged in the original incident report, for reasons that are unclear from the
record. On January 14, 2011, Lieutenant M. Perrigan delivered another copy of Incident Report
#1929047 to Adames, who appeared before the UDC on January 19, 2011, and stated that he had
already been prosecuted for this offense. The UDC referred the matter to a DHO for further hearing.
On January 26, 2011, a DHO hearing was held. DHO Dennis reported that Adames stated to him
at this hearing: “I did it” and “I already went through this.” [R. 1-1, p. 52] On January 26, 2011,
DHO Dennis found Adames guilty of the Code 101 offense, and imposed sanctions nearly twice as
severe as those imposed in Adames’ second conviction.1 The DHO ordered Adames to spend 60
days in disciplinary segregation; disallowed 41 days of his Good Conduct Time; and revoked his
visitation, phone, and commissary privileges for 365 days. Also, it appears from this third
conviction that DHO Dennis was unaware that a rehearing had already been conducted to correct the
procedural defects surrounding Adames’ first conviction.2 Further, the effective date of the sanctions
1
In Adames’ first and second convictions, he was found guilty of simple assault, a Code 224
offense, that is less severe than sexual assault, a Code 101 offense.
2
His DHO report contains the following statement: “As Administrative Remedy, the
discipline process begins anew to clarify the delay in the issuance of the incident report and your
4
imposed on the third conviction was January 26, 2011, with no reference to the sanctions previously
imposed by DHO Comstock on September 1, 2010, and without any statement of the effective date
of the sanctions or indication whether they would be retroactively applicable to January 29, 2010,
the date the original sanctions were imposed.
Adames appealed the third disciplinary conviction in Administrative Remedy #628283. On
March 14, 2011, the BOP’s Southeast Regional Office remanded that conviction to the institution
for a rehearing without providing any stated reason. [R. 1-2, p. 24] Adames appealed that decision
to the BOP’s Central Office. On August 11, 2011, the Central Office declined to hear the merits of
this appeal, stating:
The record shows the Regional Director again remanded the IR for a rehearing. This
is consistent with the provisions of Program Statement 5270.08, Inmate Discipline
and Special Housing Units. The rehearing had occurred on March 9, 2011. Although
the sequence of events is a bit confusing, we support the decision for the reasons
noted above. You were directed to reinstate your appeal rights regarding the latest
hearing through the Regional Director.
Accordingly, we would be remiss to consider the merits of your appeal regarding the
rehearing before the RD is afforded the opportunity to review the rehearing decision.
Given this and the foregoing, we provide this response for informational purposes.
[R. 1-2, p. 34]
Based on the record, it appears that no further action has been taken on
Administrative Remedy #628283 subsequent to the Central Office decision on August 11, 2011.
The record in this case, compounded by administrative and typographical errors, confuses
rather than clarifies both the events that have occurred and the reasons for the BOP’s actions. For
example, the record is devoid of any explanation as to why Adames was prosecuted in January of
2011, for a third time on the same offense, when it appears that the prosecution of the offense
refusal to appear for the UDC hearing.” [R. 1-1, p. 53]
5
charged in Incident Report #1929047 should have been concluded with the rehearing held on July
7, 2010, and the DHO report issued on July 9, 2010, as amended on September 1, 2010. In addition,
in its decision dated August 11, 2011, the Central Office states that a rehearing occurred on March
9, 2011, [R. 1-2, p. 34], but the Regional Office did not remand the matter to the institution for a
rehearing until March 14, 2011. [R. 1-2, pp. 24] Whatever the correct date may be, the record is
unclear and confusing, as well as the status of Adames’ Administrative Remedy #628283.
CONCLUSION
From the record, it is unclear (1) whether Adames stands convicted under the second DHO
report issued on July 9, 2010, as amended on September 1, 2010, or under the DHO report issued
on January 26, 2011; (2) what the status is of the January 26, 2011 DHO decision, given that on
March 14, 2011, the Southeast Regional Office remanded the proceeding for rehearing; (3) what
exact sanctions have been imposed on Adames; and (4) on what date these sanctions became
effective. For these reasons, a response by the BOP is warranted, but only as to Adames’ challenge
of his disciplinary conviction(s) concerning Incident Report #1929047.
Adames’ petition also contains generalized statements that the BOP has failed to provide him
with medical care, an ostensible Eighth Amendment violation, and he seeks $3.5 million in
compensatory damages. Such claims, including a claim for compensatory damages, are not
cognizable in a Section 2241 habeas petition. Such a petition is reserved for a challenge to the
manner in which a sentence is executed, rather than the validity of the sentence itself. Capaldi
v.Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998). Claims challenging conditions of confinement,
such as claims regarding the adequacy of medical care, must be brought in a civil rights action under
28 U.S.C. § 1331 under the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,
6
403 U.S. 388 (1971), not in a Section 2241 habeas petition. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714
(6th Cir. 2004); Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004). To the extent that
Adames is attempting to assert Bivens claims in his Section 2241 petition, those claims will be
dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff Santos Adames’ constitutional claims arising under Bivens, including his
claim for compensatory damages, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to refile
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Bivens doctrine.
2.
The Warden is directed to file a response to Adames’ claim that his due process rights
were violated in the BOP’s prosecution(s) of Incident Report #1929047.
3.
The Clerk of the Court shall prepare the documents necessary for service of process
upon Adames’ custodian, Francisco Quintana, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Lexington,
Kentucky.
4.
The Clerk of the Court shall prepare a “Service Packet” consisting of the following
documents for service of process upon the United States of America:
a.
b.
c.
d.
5.
a completed summons form;
the habeas petition and attachments thereto [R. 1];
this Memorandum Opinion and Order; and
a completed USM Form 285.
Additionally, the Clerk of the Court shall make a copy of the above-described
documents, each set containing the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
a copy of all completed summons forms issued to the respondent;
a copy of all completed USM Forms 285;
one copy of the habeas petition and all attachments [R. 1]; and
one copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
7
6.
The Deputy Clerk shall present the Service Packet(s) and copies to the United States
Marshals Service (“USMS”) in Lexington, Kentucky.
7.
Service of Process upon the Respondent, Francisco Quintana, Warden, shall be
conducted by the USMS in Lexington, Kentucky, by serving a Service Packet personally upon him,
through arrangement with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
8.
The USMS must complete service on the named respondent by serving one set of
copies of the documents described in paragraph 4 above, by certified or registered mail, to:
a.
b.
the Office of the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C.;
and
c.
9.
the Civil Process Clerk at the Office of the United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of Kentucky;
the Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C.
The petitioner SHALL:
a.
Immediately advise the Clerk’s Office of any change in his current mailing
address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case.
b.
Communicate with the court solely through notices or motions filed with the
Clerk’s Office. The court will disregard correspondence sent directly to
the judge’s chambers.
c.
In every notice, motion, or paper filed with the court, certify in writing that
he has mailed a copy to every defendant (or his or her attorney) and state the
date of mailing. The court will disregard any notice or motion which does
not include this certification.
This October 31, 2012.
8
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?