Carroll v. Quintana

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1. respondent is directed to file a response to Carroll's claim that his constitutional rights were violated by his conviction of prison offenses charged against him while confined at FCI-E dgefield in October of 2012; 2. Clerk shall prepare documents for service upon Francisco Quintana; 3. Clerk shall prepare "Service Packet" as indicated; 4. Clerk shall make copy of documents as indicated; 5. Clerk shall present Service Pack et & copies to USM; 6. Service upon respondent shall be conducted by USM as indicated; USM is responsible for ensuring that respondent is successfully served w/ as indicated; 7. USM must complete service on named respondent by serving copies describe d in above paragraph 4 by certified or registered mail to: a. US Atty EDKY; b. US Atty Gen; & c. Fed. BOP; 8. petitioner shall follow instructions as indicated in this order. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on January 22, 2015.(MWZ)cc: COR (Petitioner via U.S. Mail), USM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
ANTHONY LEON CARROLL,

Civil No. 5:14-326-KKC

Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

v.
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.

Petitioner Anthony Leon Carroll is an inmate currently confined in the Federal Medical
Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding pro se, Carroll has filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. [R. 2] Carroll’s petition
concerns his conviction of a prison disciplinary offense for which he was charged on or about
September 26, 2012, while he was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution-Edgefield
(“FCI-Edgefield”) located in Edgefield, South Carolina. Carroll maintains that he was innocent of
the charged offense, that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and that his
conviction resulted in a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection. Carroll seeks the
following relief: (1) a court order (a) expunging his disciplinary conviction and reversing the
sanctions imposed, and (b) directing the BOP to restore his forfeited good time credits and all
other privileges, and to return him to a prison camp.1 Carroll also requests injunctive relief from
retaliation for having filed this petition in the exercise of his right of access to the court.
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
1Carroll

was housed in the camp at FCI-Edgefield at the time of the charged offense.

1

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 Court has reviewed the record.

Because there is no documentation whatsoever

accompanying Carroll’s petition, such as the BOP’s records of (1) the incident report, (2) Carroll’s
appearance before the Uniform Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”), (3) the report of the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”), and (4) Carroll’s appeal of his conviction through the
Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) Administrative Remedy process,2 there is insufficient information of
record to enable the Court to properly evaluate his petition. For these reasons, as more fully
explained below, the Warden will be directed to respond to Carroll’s habeas petition.
BACKGROUND3
In September of 2012, while Carroll was confined in the camp at FCI-Edgefield, prison
officials conducted a mass search of the camp cells. A prison official found contraband in
Carroll’s cell, 205L in D-2 Unit, a cell he occupied with another inmate. More particularly, the
charging officer reported that he discovered two cell phone chargers and thirteen individual

2Carroll

states that he appealed his conviction to the BOP’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Office in Administrative Remedy
No. 723390-R1, and then to the BOP’s Central Office in Administrative Remedy No. 723390-A1; however, neither
copies of the administrative remedies he filed nor copies of the BOP’s responses thereto are attached to his habeas
petition.
3The

following summary is consists solely of Carroll’s account of the events, as stated in his habeas petition and
supporting memorandum.

2

cigarettes4 in several pairs of socks rolled-up inside of a laundry bag that was identified as
Carroll’s property and that there were other clothing items in the laundry bag that were marked
with the name “CARROLL.” The contraband was confiscated, and Carroll was charged with
possession of contraband. Carroll states he was initially charged with violation of Code Nos. 331
and 305, but that the code 305 violation was later changed to a code 108 violation. [R. 1-1]
It is unclear when Carroll appeared before the UDC, but he states that the DHO hearing
was held on October 4, 2012. Carroll states that he had requested that counselor D. Watkins
represent him at the DHO hearing, but that D. Watkins was not present at the hearing. Carroll
states that the DHO report indicates that the code 305 violation was changed to a code 105
violation. Although Carroll denied that any of the contraband found in his laundry bag belonged
to him, the DHO found him guilty of these offenses and imposed the following penalties: 30 days
of Disciplinary Segregation; disallowance of 41 days Good Conduct Time; one-year loss of
visitation, commissary, telephone, and e-mail privileges.
Carroll states that he appealed his conviction in Administrative Remedy No. 723390-R1,
that his appeal was denied, that he then appealed to the BOP’s Central Office, that the response
was due by August 3, 2013, and that the Central Office failed to respond to his appeal. Assuming
the truthfulness of Carroll’s statements, he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
CONCLUSION
In summary, given the lack of any documentation concerning Carroll’s disciplinary
conviction and administrative remedy process, a response from the Warden is warranted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

4Carroll

states that his cell-mate admitted that the cigarettes found in Carroll’s laundry bag were his cigarettes, but
that his cell-mate was never questioned or charged with any offense.

3

1.

The respondent Warden is directed to file a response to Carroll’s claim that his

constitutional rights were violated by his conviction of prison offenses charged against him while
confined at FCI-Edgefield in October of 2012.
2.

The Clerk of the Court shall prepare the documents necessary for service of

process upon Carroll’s custodian, Francisco Quintana, Warden, Federal Medical Center,
Lexington, Kentucky.
3.

The Clerk of the Court shall prepare a “Service Packet” consisting of the

following documents for service of process upon the Francisco Quintana, Warden:
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.

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.
5.

a copy of the completed summons form issued to
the respondent;
a copy of all completed USM Form 285;
one copy of the habeas petition and all attachments [R. 1]; and
one copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The Deputy Clerk shall present the Service Packet(s) and copies to the United

States Marshals Service (“USMS”) in Lexington, Kentucky.
6.

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.
The USMS is responsible for ensuring that the respondent is successfully served with
process. In the event that an attempt at service upon him is unsuccessful, the USMS shall make
further attempts and shall ascertain such information as is necessary to ensure successful service.
4

7.

The USMS must complete service on the named respondent by serving the copies

described in above paragraph 4 by certified or registered mail to:
a.
b.

one set to the Office of the Attorney General of the
United States in Washington, D.C.; and,

c.
8.

one set of the copies to the Civil Process Clerk at the Office of the United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky;

one set to 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.

Dated January 22, 2015.

5