Rocha v. Quintana
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Clerk shall prepare copies of following documents and forward each by certified mail to Respondent Quintana, Attorney General for the US, and US Attorney for EDKY: a. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 and b. t his Order. 2. Respondent shall file response to petition w/in 60 days, in form of memorandum addressing factual allegations and legal claims. 3. Rocha must keep Clerk informed of current mailing address. Failure to notify Clerk of any address ch ange may result in dismissal of case. 4. Rocha must send a copy of every document he files with Court to Respondent or its attorney. Must certify he has done so. 5. Rocha must communicate with Court solely through notices or motions filed. Court will disregard correspondence sent directly to judge's chambers.. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/21/2018.(GLD)cc: Pro se Petitioner, Atty Gen for US via cert mail; US Atty EDKY via cert mail; Respondent Warden Quintana via cert mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JUAN CARLOS ROCHA,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 5: 16-386-KKC
V.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
*** *** *** ***
Inmate Juan Carlos Rocha is an inmate confined at the Federal Medical Center in
Lexington, Kentucky. Rocha has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the imposition of prison disciplinary sanctions. [R. 1] 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). A petition will be denied “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 1(b)). The Court evaluates Rocha’s petition under a more lenient
standard because he is not represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
At this stage of the proceedings, the Court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and
construes all legal claims in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007).
Rocha’s claim in his petition arises from his inability to provide a urine sample to prison
officials on July 3, 2015. An Incident Report was issued on July 3, 2015, which charged him with
refusing to provide a urine sample, refusing to breathe into a breathalyzer, and refusing to take part
in other drug abuse testing. A Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) conducted a hearing on July
14, 2015 and found Rocha guilty of the disciplinary offense in a report dated July 29, 2015. The
DHO imposed various sanctions, including the forfeiture or disallowance of 41 days of good
conduct time. [R. 1-1 at p. 2-5].
In his petition, Rocha claims that, although the Report issued by the DHO states that Rocha
did not present any documentary evidence, nor did he request any witnesses, Rocha was prevented
from doing so. Rocha generally argues that the fact that he was in the SHU before his DHO hearing
greatly limited his ability to obtain documents that he wanted to present at the DHO hearing,
particularly documents regarding his prior urine and breath samples. He also claims that, although
he wrote several requests to staff seeking specific prison records that he could use as evidence at
his hearing, these requests were ignored and/or he was told that he would have to wait until after
his DHO hearing. He also claims that he was prevented from calling witnesses. He also complains
that the reasons that he gave for being unable to provide the urine sample within the time provided
(including that he was dehydrated from his job, he was constipated, and he was taking over the
counter allergy tablets) were not reflected in the DHO’s report. Finally, he purports to challenge
28 C.F.R. § 550.31 and the BOP’s Policy Statement (“PS”)-6060.08 outlining the procedures for
taking a urine sample from inmates “as written and as applied to all inmates,” on the grounds that
these regulations violate due process because “they are unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious,
and are void for vagueness.” [R. 1 at p. 12].
However, Rocha’s claim that 28 C.F.R. § 550.31 and PS-6060.08 are unconstitutional on
their face because they violate due process fails as a matter of law. To prevail on a claim that these
policies are unconstitutional on their face, Rocha “must establish that no set of circumstances exists
under which the [challenged policies] would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739,
2
745 (1987). See also Cincinnati Women’s Services, Inc. v. Taft, 468 F.3d 361, 368 (6th Cir. 2006).
Rocha specifically challenges the presumption provided by the regulations that “[a]n inmate is
presumed to be unwilling [to provide a urine sample] if the inmate fails to provide a urine sample
within the allotted time period.” 28 C.F.R. § 550.31. However, an inmate may rebut this
presumption during the disciplinary process. Id. Although Rocha argues that “it is close to
impossible for an inmate to rebut the presumption,” he fails to support this claim with anything
other than his own conclusory allegations. Regardless, because the presumption of the regulations
is rebuttable during the disciplinary process, the regulations themselves do not violate the due
process clause. See Ramey v. Hawk, 730 F.Supp. 1366, 1375 (E.D.N.C. 1989)(“The BOP's Policy
6060.4, implemented pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 550 et seq., is constitutional both on its face and as
it was applied to plaintiff.”). Thus, Rocha’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of these
regulations fails.
However, the Court finds that the remainder of the allegations of the petition warrant
response and further elaboration from the respondent.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
The Clerk of the Court shall prepare copies of the following documents and forward
each by certified mail to Respondent Francisco J. Quintana, Warden of FMC-Lexington, the
Attorney General for the United States, and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Kentucky:
a.
Rocha’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R.
1]; and
b.
This Order.
3
2.
Respondent shall file a response to the petition within 60 days. The traverse shall
be in the form of a memorandum addressing the factual allegations and legal claims contained in
the petition; a formal motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is not necessary or appropriate
for these proceedings. Respondent shall also include any documentary evidence relevant to either
Petitioner’s claims or Respondent’s response thereto as attachments.
3.
Rocha must keep the Clerk of the Court informed of his current mailing address.
Failure to notify the Clerk of any address change may result in a dismissal of this case.
4.
Rocha must send a copy of every document he files with the Court to Respondent
or its attorney. The original document petitioner files with the Court must include his statement
certifying that he has done so and the date the document was mailed to Respondent. Any document
filed without the required certification will be disregarded by the Court.
5.
Rocha must communicate with the Court solely through notices or motions filed
with the Court. The Court will disregard correspondence sent directly to the judge’s chambers.
Dated March 21, 2018.
4
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?