ISOM v. POOLE
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 09/15/2015. ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied and that judgment be entered dismissing the action.(Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JEFFERSON D. ISOM,
v.
KATY POOLE,
)
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent. )
1:15CV278
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, submitted a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody, together with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Proceedings, states:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petitio n and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
Further, a writ of habeas corpus may only issue if a petitioner demonstrates that he is in
state custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a).
Here, Petitioner sets out a potential claim for relief based on a prison disciplinary
conviction for possessing tobacco. According to Petitioner, a new guard who had not yet
been properly trained searched his cell in violation of certain prison policies and found
tobacco. Petitioner denied possessing the tobacco, claiming that another inmate or guard
could have put the substance in the area where the guard found it. Nevertheless, the
disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty. Petitioner claims that he was not solely
responsible for the area where the guard found the tobacco, that the guard did not follow
proper procedures during the search, and that he is therefore not guilty of possessing the
tobacco.
This Court’s ability to review prison disciplinary proceedings under § 2254 is
quite limited. “In a prison disciplinary hearing, an inmate has a right to advance written
notice of his charges, a chance to present evidence, and a written statement from the
factfinder explaining the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the ultimate decision.”
Reeves v. Herron, No. 1:09CV287, 2010 WL 3945115, at *4 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2010)
(unpublished) (citing Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,
454 (1985)), recommendation adopted, slip op., No. 1:09CV287 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 3,
2010); see also Wolff v McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). In addition, some evidence
must support the factfinder’s decision. Reeves, 2010 WL 3945115, at *4.
In this case, Petitioner does not appear to contend that he failed to receive notice
of his charges, that he did not have a chance to present evidence, or that he did not
receive a written decision discussing the evidence. Instead, he seeks to challenge the
investigation of the incident and reargue the charge in this Court. However, although
Petitioner disagrees with the decision to convict him and with the weight given to the
search that discovered the tobacco, he does not allege that no evidence supported the
conviction.
Petitioner cannot use the present preceding to re-litigate or re-argue the
findings and conclusions from the disciplinary hearing. In this regard, “the court does not
2
assess the weight of the evidence and leaves the task of determining the believability of
the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing to the hearing officer.” Haynes v.
Quarterman, No. 4:07-CV-0129-A, 2008 WL 859411, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2008)
(unpublished). “[I]n reviewing administrative findings under a federal habeas corpus or a
section 1983 complaint, the federal courts cannot assume the task of retrying all prison
disciplinary disputes,” but must instead “consider whether the decision is supported by
‘some facts’ or ‘any evidence at all.’” Haynes, 2008 WL 859411, at *5 (citing and
quoting Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir.1981)).
In sum, it plainly appears from the Petition that Petitioner possesses no right to
relief. Accordingly, in forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of
entering this Order and Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the
sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied and that judgment be entered dismissing the action.
This, the 15th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Joi Elizabeth Peake
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?