VAUGHN v. HOLLINGSWORTH

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Respondent shall show cause, in writing, as to why Petitioner shall not be availed to a curative disciplinary hearing. Respondents written statement shall be filed within 45 days from the date of entry of t his Memorandum Opinion and Order. ORDERED that Respondents written statement shall include all affirmative defenses and be accompanied by the relevant administrative record. ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Petitioner shall file his affidavit re: the incident at issue, etc.. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/24/2014. (TH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
GARY VAUGHN,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH,
Respondent.

Civil Action No. 14-6470 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BUMB, District Judge:
This matter comes before this Court upon Petitioner’s filing
of a § 2241 petition.

See Docket Entry No. 1 (“Petition”).

The

Petition raises challenges to the sanctions imposed as a result
of Petitioner’s disciplinary hearing.

See id.

Petitioner’s allegations are scarce.

See, generally, id.

Petitioner asserts that, on a certain unspecified date, when he
was confined at Lisbon, Ohio, he suffered serious physical
injuries upon being attacked by unspecified inmate(s).
at 2, 3 and 6-7.

See id.

According to the Petition, Petitioner made

certain physical movements during the attack because he was
trying to defend himself from the punches.

See id.

After the

incident, he was charged with an unspecified disciplinary
infraction (which this Court presumes to be the prohibited act of
“Fighting with Another Person”) and had a disciplinary hearing
based on that charge.

See id.

He maintains that, during the

hearing, he testified that his physical movements were limited to
those necessary to defend himself, and he was not the attacker.

See id. at 7.

He also asserts that the disciplinary hearing

officer incorrectly recorded his statements as an admission that
Petitioner partook in the altercation rather than merely made the
movements needed to defend himself.

See id. at 7.

Being found guilty of the aforesaid disciplinary infraction,
Petitioner was sanctioned; his sanctions included the loss of 27
days of good-conduct-time credits (“GCT”), as well as other
sanctions not amenable to a challenge in this matter.
2.

See id. at

He asserts that he duly exhausted his administrative remedies

at all levels of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and had his
administrative appeals denied by each level of the BOP short of
the Central Office, which failed to timely respond to his appeal
hence ripening his claims for a § 2241 habeas review.
3; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15(a) and 542.18.

See id. at

At this juncture,

Petitioner seeks restoration of his lost GCT credits and
expungement of his prison record.

See Docket Entry No. 1, at 8.

The legal framework implicated by Petitioner’s claims is
well-established and was explained, in great detail, in Mitts v.
Zickefoose, 869 F. Supp. 2d 568 (D.N.J. 2012).

There, an inmate

raised an analogous claim by asserting that he was attacked by
another prisoner, made only the physical movements necessary to
defend himself, was charged with “Fighting with Another Person”

Page 2

and was sanctioned to the loss of 27 days of GCT credit.1

As

Petitioner here, the Mitts inmate sought restoration of his GCT
credits and expungement of record.

See id.

The Mitts court clarified that the proper remedy with regard
to a successful claim asserting an unconstitutional loss of GCT
credits was an order directing a bona fide curative hearing free
of the procedural errors that tainted the original hearing, while
an order directing restoration of credits was an inappropriate
remedy unless the inmate was denied a bona fide curative hearing.
See id. at 575; see also Cannon v. Schultz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
59468, at *30 (D.N.J. June 16, 2010).
The Mitts court also pointed out that the remedy of
expungement, even if deemed available in habeas review, could be
granted only if the curative hearing yields an acquittal, or if a
bona fide curative hearing is denied.

See Mitts, 869 F. Supp. 2d

at 578; see also Williams v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 85 F. App’x
299, 303 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting, without endorsement, the holding
of in Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197, 201 (4th Cir.1979), that
“[i]n certain limited circumstances a claim of constitutional

1

The sole difference between the allegations in Mitts and
those at bar is that the Mitts inmate asserted that he was denied
an opportunity to have a prison representative at his hearing,
while Petitioner asserts that his testimony was incorrectly
recorded as an admission that he partook in the altercation.
Since both matters maintain that the hearing was tainted by a
deficient process, Mitts is substantively indistinguishable from
the case at bar for the purposes of this Court’s due process
analysis.
Page 3

magnitude [might be] raised where a prisoner alleges (1) that
[underlying factual] information is in his file, (2) that the
information is [wholly] false, and (3) that it is relied upon [by
an administrative body] to a constitutionally significant degree
[and to the petitioner’s detriment]”); accord Harris v. Ricci,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94996, at *9, n.3 (D.N.J. July 14, 2014)
(an expungement takes place automatically upon an acquittal, and
a new habeas or mandamus action is the proper vehicle to enforce
expungement in the event it did not take place automatically).
Finally, Mitts made it clear that a finding of guilt (as to
the prohibited act of “Fighting with Another Person”) violates
the due process safeguards only if the disciplined inmate made no
physical movements other than those needed to protect himself,
e.g., if the inmate only covered himself/blocked the attacker’s
punches.

See, generally, Mitts, 869 F. Supp. 2d 568. Conversely,

if the inmate made offensive physical movements with an aim to
assault his attacker, then the finding of “Fighting with Another
Person” is proper, even if the inmate was not the instigator of
the altercation.

See id.

Correspondingly, this Court will direct Respondent to show
cause as to why Petitioner’s application for habeas relief (in
the form of a bona fide curative hearing) should not be granted.
Petitioner will be directed to file an affidavit averring that,

Page 4

during the incident at issue, he did not make physical movements
with an aim to assault his attacker.
IT IS, therefore, on this 24th day of November, 2014,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve the Petition and this
Memorandum Opinion and Order upon the Office of the United States
Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Such service shall be

executed by means of electronic delivery; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve the Petition and this
Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Respondent by regular U.S.
mail; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall show cause, in writing, as to
why Petitioner shall not be availed to a curative disciplinary
hearing.

Respondent’s written statement shall be filed within

forty five days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondents’ written statement shall include
all affirmative defenses and be accompanied by the relevant
administrative record; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent’s written statement shall contain an
index of exhibits.

That index shall refer to each exhibit

docketed by Respondent and shall designate each exhibit by the
docket entry made in the instant matter; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall file his written statement and
exhibits electronically.

No document shall be filed in hard copy

Page 5

unless Respondent seeks and obtains this Court’s order allowing
Respondent hard copy filing; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall serve his written statement
and exhibits upon Petitioner and, upon so serving, file with the
Clerk his certificate of service; and it is further
ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of entry of
this Memorandum Opinion and order, Petitioner shall file his
affidavit clarifying whether, during the incident at issue, he
did or did not make physical movements with an aim to assault his
attacker; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order upon
Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

S/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB,
United States District Judge

Page 6