Graham v. Warden Stewart
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/7/2017. (c/m 9/8/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES I>ISTRICT COURT.:'
FOR THE IllSTlUCT OF MARYLAND
2m SEP - 8
•• I :'
Case No. G.III-16-25711
In response to the above-entitled
to dismiss or. in the alternative.
shall be dismissed.
and a certilicatc
Petition for Writ of Ilabeas Corpus. Respondent
lor summary judgment.
ECF NO.4. Petitioner opposes the
motion. Eel' NO.6. and moves lor leave to Iile a surreply.
ECF No. 10. I For the reasons that
as a motion to dismiss. shall be granted. the petition
shall not issue.
Vincent Graham. an inmate confined to the custody of the Federal Bureau "I'
at Federal Correctional
tiled this Petition I()r Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 2241
the validity of a disciplinary
hearing Iinding him guilty of lighting with another
1 Unless otherwise ordered hy the Court. a surreply is not permitted.
Sf!f! Local Rule 105.2(a) (D. Md. 2016). A
surreply is permittcd \••.. the moving party \••..
ould be unable to contest matters present cd to the court for the lirs!
timc in the opposing party's reply brier 5ief! Leu.is \'. RIII/1.~/(>ld. 154 F. Supp. 2d 56. 61 (D.D.C. 2(01). Rcspondcnt
in thc instant casc has not raised ncw mattcrs for the lirst timc in its Reply in support or Respondent's Motion to
Dismiss or. in the alterative. Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No.8; therefore. the Motion to File a Surreply.
ECF NO.1 O. shall be denied.
inmatc whilc incarccratcd
Low Sccurity Institution.
allegcs that he was not in a physical altcrcation:
ECF NO.1 at X.- Graham
rathcr hc was the victim of an assault. Id As
rcliet: Graham sceks reversal of thc guilty verdict and rcmoval of thc incidcnt Irom his prison
tllc. ECF NO.1 at 9.
On July 28. 2015. Graham reccived
Code 201. "Fighting
Rcport states that at approximatcly
Incident Report No. 2757654 charging him with
With Anothcr Person'"
ECF No. 4_2:J Thc Incidcnt
12:30 p.m .. inmate "A" struck Graham in thc Icli cyc with a
c10scd list.. Id at I. Inmate A thcn cxitcd the shower room and cntcrcd his assigncd ccll. lei.
li,lIowed inmatc A and attcmpted
to cntcr inmate A's cubicle. Id Inmate A
charged out of the cubicle and both inmatcs exchanged
punchcs in the hallway. Id rinally.
incident report provides that a review of vidco li,otagc demonstrated
in a physical altercation.
both Graham and inmate A
9. 2015. a Unit Disciplinary
Thc UDC referrcd thc charge to the Disciplinc
C'UDC') hcaring was conducted.
Ilcaring Ortlccr ("'DIIO") based on thc scvcrity of
thc incident. ECF No. 4-3. Graham received a copy of his rights. which he read and signed. ECF
No. 4-4. lie did not rcquest any witnesses.
lOCI' No. 4-3. Graham indicated that hc wishcd to
have Case Manager Casscl servc as his staff rcprescntative.
1 Pin cites to documents
his dutics as a stair reprcscntati\'c
filed on the COllrt"S electronic
ECF Nos. 4-3 and 4-5. Cassel rcad
filing. system (eM/ECF) refer to rhe page numbers gellcrated
by that system .
.; The following discussion provides a review orlile findings made during Graham"s disciplinary proceedings to
which Graham is challenging. The discussion was taken from c:\hibits provided by the Respondent and aligns with
Graham's characterization orthe event as sci f0l1h in his complaint. ECf' No. I.
The identity orthe inmate involved in the altercation
to the Court.
with Graham is redacted in the disciplinary
24. 2015. DIIO Todd Cerney conducted
ECF No. 4-6. After considering
footage. and Graham's
a hearing on Incident Report No.
of thc reporting oflicer. thc vidco
DHO Cerney found that the greater weight of the evidencc
that Graham was guilty of violating
Codc 20 I. Eel' No. 4-
Graham raiscs two principal
issues with his disciplinary
that the incident report named the wrong inmate involved
at 8. According
to Graham. the altercation
involved was housed on Brady A Unit. However.
First. Graham allcgcs
in the altercation
on Brady A Unit. and the individual
to Graham. the individual
the incident report was housed on Brady B Unit and is not the same individual
video footage reviewed
during the disciplinary
July 29. 2015. one day after the altercation.
ECF No. I
that appears in the
Id Second. Graham states that on
he was approached
by Special Investigative
who told him that he was advised of the altercation
infi.mnant. would dran an incidcnt report but not process it. and would transfer Graham to
another housing unit. !d However.
video fi.)otage indicatcd
"given the circumstances.
later informed Graham that review of the
that Graham did in fact engage in a physical conti-
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?