Graham v. Warden Stewart

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/7/2017. (c/m 9/8/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)

ff

r

,

,'" r

IN THE UNITED STATES I>ISTRICT COURT.:'
FOR THE IllSTlUCT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

'- /

2m SEP - 8

VINCENT GRAHAM,

*

Petitioner,

*

v.

*

WARDEN STEWART,

•• I :'

;:. /3

r-

*

Respondent.

CL[.r:
I,T C

..
, .,

Case No. G.III-16-25711

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
In response to the above-entitled
to dismiss or. in the alternative.

*

*

shall be dismissed.

I.

and a certilicatc

*

Petition for Writ of Ilabeas Corpus. Respondent

lor summary judgment.

motion. construed

*

*

OPINION
moves

ECF NO.4. Petitioner opposes the

motion. Eel' NO.6. and moves lor leave to Iile a surreply.
1()lIow. Respondent's

*

ECF No. 10. I For the reasons that

as a motion to dismiss. shall be granted. the petition

of appealability

shall not issue.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner

Prisons ("BOP")
Cumberland").
challenging

Vincent Graham. an inmate confined to the custody of the Federal Bureau "I'
and incarcerated

at Federal Correctional

Institution

Cumberland

("FCI-

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 \••..
hen
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

at Allcnwood

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
violating

Disciplinary

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.
Graham allcgcdly

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
wcrc involvcd

in a physical altercation.

On Septcmbcr

the

both Graham and inmate A

Id

9. 2015. a Unit Disciplinary

Thc UDC referrcd thc charge to the Disciplinc

Committcc

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.
and acknowledged

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

on September

10.2015.

1<1.

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.
4

The identity orthe inmate involved in the altercation

to the Court.

with Graham is redacted in the disciplinary

record provided

On September
2757654.

24. 2015. DIIO Todd Cerney conducted

ECF No. 4-6. After considering

footage. and Graham's
supported

the conclusion

statcmcnts.

the statements

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

Disciplinary

Codc 20 I. Eel' No. 4-

6.
Graham raiscs two principal

issues with his disciplinary

that the incident report named the wrong inmate involved
at 8. According

to Graham. the altercation

occurred

involved was housed on Brady A Unit. However.

action.

First. Graham allcgcs

in the altercation

with him.

on Brady A Unit. and the individual

according

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.
Supervisor

("SIS") Matthews

ECF No. I

proceeding.

namcd in

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

by an

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.

SIS Matthews

later informed Graham that review of the

that Graham did in fact engage in a physical conti-<lIltation but that
he clected not to charge [Graham

I with

providing

a fillse statemcnt'"

!d. Graham asserts that he did not provide SIS Matthews with a statement 1i.)lIowing the
altercation.
II.

ECF No. I at 8.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The purpose ofa 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is to test the sufliciency ofa plaintiffs

complaint. See Presley \.. Cily o(Chllrlo/lesvil!e. 464 F.3d 480. 484 (4th Cir. 2006). When ruling on
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). a court must "accept the \\'ellpled allegations of the complaint as true. and ... construe the facts and reasonable inlercnccs derived

,
.1

thcrcfrom in thc light most Illvorablc to thc plaintiff."'lharra

". U.S .. 120 r.3d 472. 474 (4th Cir.

1997). Although a pleading callcd into qucstion by Rulc 12(b)(6) does not nced to providc "dctailcd
factual allcgations:'

somcthing "morc than labels and conclusions"

is required. and thcrc must bc

lactual allegations sullicicnt to "raisc a right to relief abovc thc spcculative levcl:' /Jell ;/iiall/ic
Corp.

TlI'amhiy. 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007). To survivc a Rulc 12(b)(6) motion. a plcading must

I'.

contain "cnough lactualmatter
556. Where"a
short ofthc

(takcn as truc) to suggest" the viability ofthc plaintilrs

complaint plcads facts that arc merely consistent with a dcfcndant's

linc bctwccn possibility and plausibility ofcntitlcmcnt

claims. Id. at

liability. it stops

to rclicf."' Ashcrofi ". I"hal. 556

U.S. 662. 678 (2009). See also. Frallcis ,'. Giacomelli. 558 F.3d 186. 193 (4th Cir. 2009) ("fNlakcd
asscrtions of wrongdoing

ncccssitatc some factual cnhanccmcnt

withinthc

complaint to cross thc linc

bctween possibility and plausibility of cntitlement to relicf."') (intcrnal quotations omittcd).
Pro sc complaints such as Graham's

must bc construcd libcrally and must bc "held to Icss

stringcnt standards than fonnal plcadings dralied by lawyers:'
(2007). Dcspitc this liberal construction

rcquirement.

Ericksall \'. fanills.

"[plrinciplcs

551 U.S. 89. 94

rcquiring gcnerous construction of

pro se complaints are not ... without limits:' Beal/(Iell \'. Ci/Y'iniamp/oll.

775 r.2d 1274. 1278 (4th

Cir. 1985). Coul1s arc not required to "conjurc up questions ncvcr squarely prescntcd to thcm" nor
"construct

full blown claims from sentencc tragmcnts:'

Id. "[WJhcrc thc wcll-plcadcd

pcrmit the court to infcr morc than thc merc possibility ofmisconducl.
but it has not shown---that

facts do not

thc complaint has allcgcd---

the pleader is entitlcd to reliet:" I"hal. 556 U.S. at 679 (intcrnal quotations

omittcd).
When considering a motion pursuant to rcd. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). couns "must considcr the
complaint in its entirety. as wcll as othcr sources courts ordinarily cxaminc whcn ruling on Rulc
12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. in particular. documents incorporatcd
and mattcrs of which a counmay

into thc complaint by rclercncc.

takc judicial not icc:' Tellahs, Illc. ".• l/akar Isslles & Riglus. Lid..

551 U.S. 308. 322 (2007). Thus. on a motion to dismiss for lailurc to statc a e1aim upon which rclicf
4

could bc grantcd. courts may consider documents rererenced in the complaint even irthosc
documcnts arc not physically attached to thc complaint. See. e.g.. IIQM Uti. \'. Halfield. 71 r:. Supp.
2d 500. 502 (D. Md. 1999)5
III.

DISCUSSION
Prisoners

disciplinary
defendant

retain rights under the r:ourteenth

proeeedings

Amendment"s

are not part ofa criminal prosecution.

(citing Morrissey \'. Brel1'Cr.408 U.S. 471. 488 (1972)).
where an inmate 1~lces the possible loss of diminution

statement

and the filii array or rights due a

does not apply. See WoW". McDonnell. 418 U.S. 5J9. 556 (1974)

in sueh proceedings

protections.

Due Process Clause. but prison

In prison disciplinary

proceedings

credits. he is entitled to certain due process

These include: (I) advance written notice of the charges against him: (2) a written
of the evidenee

relied on and the reasons for taking any disciplinary

hearing where he is afforded
not inconsistent
opportunity

the right to call witnesses

with institutional

safety and correctional

to have non-attorney

hearing involves complex

representation

eoneerns.

when doing so is

and a written decision: (4) the

when the inmate is illiterate or the disciplinary

issues: and (5) an impartial decision-maker.

564-66. 592. There is no constitutional
and be appointed

and present evidence

action: (J) a

See Wolff: 418 U.S. at

right to confront and cross-examine

witnesses

counsel. See Baxler \'. Palllligiano. 425 U.S. J08. J22 (1976):

or to retain

Br()\l'I1

\'.

Braxlon. 373 F.3d SOl. 504-05 (4th Cir. 2(04). As long as the hearing officer's decision contains

~ Respondent provided the documents that. collectively. characterize the disciplinary action at the center or
Graham's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Incident Report No. 1757654. EeF No. 4-2. Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing Before the DHO. ECF No. 4-3. Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing signed by Graham. ECF
No. 4-4. Duties of Stafr Representative signed by M. Cassel for representation of Graham. ECF No. 4-5. DliO
Report

f()f Incident

Graham

directly,

No. 2757654.

Graham's

at 8. and the Court therefore
not considering
motion

makes reference

"Disciplinary

to the information

assumes that these documents

any extraneous

tor summary

ECF No. 4-6 (collectively

complaint

judgmcnt.

documents

outside

of the

5;ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)

Hearing
contained

are incorporated
complaint

(if a

by

Record""). While

reference.

and does not construe

court considers

documcnts

judgment
2015)

under Ru Ie 56");

(a court may properly

Respondent's

notice of infonnation

5

that constitute

adjudicative

facts).

I

is

motion as a

attached to a motion

by reference into the complaint. .'the Illotion Illust be treatcd as one
see a/so Go/ct/'lrh \'. Ah~\'or and City COl/l/cil (~llJa/tim(Jrl!. 791 F.3d 500.
take judicial

ECF No.

As a result. the Court

dismiss that are not incorporated

by

not provided

in these doculllcnts.

to

for summary
SOX (4th Cir.

a written statement of the evidence relied upon. due process is satistied. See Bax/er. 425 U.S. at
322. n.5. Moreover. substantive due process is satislied if the disciplinary hearing decision was
based upon "some evidence:' Superimendem.

Alass. CO'T. In.l'/.". Ilill. 472 U.S. 445. 455

(1985). Federal courts do not review the correctness of a disciplinary hearing ofticer's findings
of tact. See Kelly,'. Cooper. 502 F. Supp. 1371. 1376 (E.D. Va. 1(80). The lindings will only be
disturhed when unsupported by any evidence. or when wholly arbitrary and capricious. See Ifill.
472 U.S. at 456: see also Baker \'. Lyles. 904 F.2d 925. 933 (4th Cir. 1(90). As long as there is
some evidence in the record to support a disciplinary committee's tactual lindings. a federal court
will not review their accuracy.
The Inmate Disciplinary Process is coditled in 20 C.F.R. Part 541 pursuant to the
authority delegated by Congress to the Bureau of Prisons in 18 U.S.c.

* 4042." Graham does not

allege that Respondent failed to adhere to these established rules. and the Disciplinary Ilearing
Records shows that Graham received the due process protections required by Wolff: Graham's
assertions. taken as true. do not suggest that Respondent denied him of these protections. The
laet that the wrong inmate was named as Graham' s assailant in the incident report does not serve
to exonerate him from the charges asserted. Further. regardless of any initial statement by SIS
Matthews that an incident report would not be processed. Graham received advanced written
notice of the charges before him on September 4. 2015 as well as an explanation li'om SIS
Matthews as to why the incident report was processed. ECF NO.1 at 8. The DIIO's decision was
supported by evidence. even when excluding any written statement or testimony provided by SIS
Matthews. and satislied the constitutional standard li)r disciplinary proceedings. ThereliJre.
Graham lails to show he is entitled to any relief.

() Respondent provides a detailed overvic\v of the Part 541 rules and associated hearing process in its Illotion Sel!
ECF No . .) at 2-1.

6

A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial ofa constitutional right. 28 U.S.c.

* 2253(c)(2). The petitioncr "must

demonstrate that rcasonablc jurists would find the district court's asscssment ofthc constitutional
claims debatablc or wrong:' Tennorc/ \". Dretke. 542 U.S. 274. 282 (2004) (citation and intcrnal
quotation marks omitted). or that "the issues prescnted arc adequatc to deserve cncouragcmcnt to
procecd further:' Miller-EI \'. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Bccause this Court linds that
there has been no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. a certi licatc or
appealability shall be dcnied. See 28 U.S.c.

IV.

* 2253(c)(2).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons. Defcndant's Motion to Dismiss, or in thc Altcrnativc. Motion
for Summary Judgment. Eel' NO.4. shall be granted. A separate Ordcr j()llows.

Dated: September]

k;!-

, 2017

•
GEORGE J. HAZEL

United States District Judgc

7