Graham v. Warden
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/19/2017. (jb5, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 9/20/2017)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
lUll
VINCENT
K. GRAHAM
SfP 20 ",', Iv: 3 0
*
Petitioner,
*
v
WARDEN OF FCI-CUMBEI{LAND
Case No.: G.III-16-2!l95
*
*
Respondent.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
Vincent
*
*
*
*
*
*
OPINION
K. Graham brings this petition for a writ of haheas corpus under 28 U.S.c. ~
2241. naming as Rcspondcnt
the Warden of FCI-Cumbcrland.
affordcd duc proccss during a hearing that resulted
Pcnding bcf()rc thc Court is Rcspondent's
Graham allcgcs that he was not
in his good timc crcdit bcing rcvokcd.
Motion to Dismiss or. in thc alternativc,
tl)r Summary
Judgmcnt.
ECF No. 11. Graham opposes the motion. ECF No. 14. ECF No. 15. No hcaring is
ncccssary
to resolvc the matters pending in this casc. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For
thc rcasons stat cd bclow, Rcspondent's
motion. construcd
as a Motion for Summary
Judgmcnt.
shall be granted and the Pctition shall bc dismisscd .
I.
•
Background
Vinccnt Graham is an inmate committcd
("BOP")
and incarccrated
lie asscrts that disciplinary
in Federal Correctional
proccedings
to thc custody of the Fcdcral Burcau of Prisons
Institution-Cumbcrland
("FCI-Cumbcrland").
lilcd against him that rcsulted in revocation
of good
conduct timc were impropcr and seeks restoration of the good conduct time and expungcmcnt of
the charges from his prison record. ECF NO.1: ECF No. 5.1
Ao
Graham's
Allegations
Graham claims that on December 10.2015. while he was incarcerated at FCI-Allenwood.
he was assaulted by another inmate. ECF NO.1 at 62 He states the assault occurred at I :30 a.m ..
while he was climbing down from the top bunk to use the restroom. Id. lie explains that the cell
housed a total of six men and is located in the Special Housing Unit ("'SHU'"). Id. Graham was'
examined by medical staff later in the morning on December 10. 2015. He claims that. following
that exam. SIS Lt. Prutzman threatened ..to stick me with a shot". because Graham failed to
cooperate with the investigation of the assault. hi. Graham relates that he was never served ,,"ith
an Administrative Detention Order. Id.
On January 8. 2016. Graham was served with an incident report and claims that Prutzman
"falsified material filctS" when he claimed that Graham admitted he was involved in a physical
altercation. Graham states that he never admitted any involvement in an altercation and insists he
was the victim of an assault. !d. He further states that his assailant was "allowed to be
discharge[dJ earlier than his scheduled release date and prior to our OlIO hearing:' Id. Alier a
hearing. Graham was found guilty of lighting with another person. Id.
On February 10.2016. during a tour of the SHU by the Warden. Graham claims that
Prutzman stopped at his cell and said .. 01 told you 1 was going to stick you with a shot:' ECF No.
I at 6. Prutzman then laughed and walked away. Id. Graham claims that on February 24. 2016.
Prutzman again stopped at his cell during the warden's tour of the SHU and said. "1 guess 1
won't be getting a Christmas card from you this year:' Prutzman then laughed and walked away.
I
The Supplemental Petition tiled at ECF NO.5 appears to be identical
2
Pin cites to documents
by
tiled on the Court"s electronic
ill
all relevant respects to the petition.
filing system (CM/ECF)
that system.
2
refer to the page numbers generated
Id. On March 2. 2016. Graham claims that Prutzman stopped at his cell. stared at Graham's
"private parts:' and said. "he wants me to make love to him!".' Id. Prutzman began laughing. /d.
Graham asserts that Prutzman began taunting him after he was found guilty on the
incident report written by Prutzman. Prior to reeeiving the incident report and during the time
Graham was awaiting a hearing. Prutzman never stopped at Graham's cell nor did he harass
Graham. Jd. Graham bases his claim for relief on: (I) the assertion that he never reeeived a copy
of the Administrative Detention Order. (2) the allegation that Prutzman litlsilied material facts
during his investigation. and (3) that the sanctions imposed violated BOP policies and
regulations. !d. at 7-8.
B.
Respondent's
Respondent's
Motion
Motion provides information regarding the Inmate Diseiplinary Process as
authorized by 18 U.S.c.
* 4042 and 28 C.F.R. * 500.
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?