Snyder v. Thomas

Filing 10

Findings & Recommendation: Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2241 1 should be denied and judgment should be entered dismissing this case with prejudice. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 2/17/2009. Response to Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 3/3/2009. Signed on 2/3/09 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON DARRELL L . SNYDER, Petitioner,

v.
J . E . THOMAS, W a r d e n , Respondent. D a r r e l l L. Snyder Fed. Reg. No. 63992-065 P.O. Box 5000 Sheridan, Oregon 97378 Petitioner Pro Se

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C i v i l No. 08-960-PK

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Karin J. Immergut United States Attorney S u z a n n e A. B r a t i s Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 Attorneys for Respondent

III
1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

PAPAK, M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e . Petitioner, Darrell L. Snyder, an inmate a t FCI Sheridan,

brings this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

2241 pro se.

For the reasons set forth below, his

P e t i t i o n ( # 1 ) s h o u l d b e DENIED.
BACKGROUND

Snyder challenges

the

legality of

sanctions

imposed as a

result of a disciplinary proceeding. FCI Sheridan.

Snyder currently resides at

P r i o r to h i s t r a n s f e r t o FCI Sheridan, he had been On J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , S n y d e r w a s prepared at FCI Taft which

housed a t FCI T a f t i n C a l i f o r n i a . presented with an incident report

charged him with testing positive for Amphetamines, violation.

a Code 112

The incident report was issued a f t e r confirmation was

received from the National Toxicology Laboratories indicating that the urine sample Snyder provided on June 17, 2005 t e s t e d positive for Amphetamines. "[o]n 6-17-2005, Notably, the body of the report stated that Inmate Hernandez,

a t approximately 2122 hours,

Angel Register #91707-198 provided a urine sample in the presence of staff which specimen I .D. #B01393816 was assigned." A second This

P e t i t i o n e r ' s Memorandum i n Support (#2), Attachment "A". incident report was provided to Snyder on June 29,

2005.

i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f i r s t e x c e p t S n y d e r ' s name and r e g i s t e r number had been substituted for "Hernandez, Angel Register #91707-198." Id., Attachment "B".

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Snyder w a s a d v i s e d o f h i s r i g h t s o n J u n e 3 0 , d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing was ("DHO") right

2005,

and a

held by Disciplinary Hearing Officer Snyder chose to exercise his regarding the specific

C. L o g a n o n J u l y 7 , 2 0 0 5 . to remain silent at the

hearing

charges against him, but stated that he "didn't receive (his] shot f o r 72 h o u r s . " I d . , A t t a c h m e n t "DHO R e p o r t " , p . 2. 1 DHO L o g a n

found that Snyder had committed the prohibited act and imposed sanctions of: l o s s of 40 days of good conduct time, 30 days

disciplinary segregation, privileges for one year.

and loss of visitation and telephone

Snyder contends t h a t a mistake was made i n the handling and/or testing of urine samples as evidenced by the f i r s t incident report bearing the name o f a d i f f e r e n t inmate with a d i f f e r e n t r e g i s t e r number. He a l s o c h a l l e n g e s t h e s e c o n d i n c i d e n t r e p o r t o n t h e

lIn this action, Snyder disputes the assertion that he remained silent during his disciplinary hearing. Instead, he i n s i s t s that he challenged the validity of both incident reports and the testing and handling of the urine samples and that he asked DHO L o g a n t o p r o v i d e h i m w i t h " c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g a t r u e and correct copy of the 'Chain of Custody' form dated June 17, 2005, purportedly linking Snyder to urine specimen #B01393816." Id. at 5. Snyder also contends that he challenged the second incident report on the grounds that i t did not s t a t e that i t was a r e - w r i t e o r e x p l a i n why i t was r e w r i t t e n a n d t h a t i t was n o t t i m e l y p r e s e n t e d t o h i m w i t h i n 24 h o u r s f r o m i t s p r e p a r a t i o n . Id. Snyder's a s s e r t i o n s t h a t he made these arguments during h i s disciplinary hearing are not credible. DHO L o g a n ' s d e c i s i o n clearly stated that Snyder chose to exercise his right to remain s i l e n t during the hearing and that she drew an adverse inference from his silence. Nevertheless, Snyder did not challenge these statements in his administrative appeals from her decision. See I d . , Attachments "Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal" and " C e n t r a l O f f i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Remedy A p p e a l " . 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

grounds t h a t i t d i d n o t s t a t e i t w a s a r e w r i t e , d i d n o t i n d i c a t e why i t was r e w r i t t e n , a n d was n o t t i m e l y p r e s e n t e d . Snyder argues

t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w i t s own r u l e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o report preparation, timely presentation of incident reports and

disciplinary hearing procedures violated his due process rights. I n h e r d e c i s i o n , DHO L o g a n a d d r e s s e d S n y d e r ' s c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g the second incident report and whether he received timely notice of the charges against him: F i r s t , t h e i n c i d e n t r e p o r t w r i t t e n b y S I S I n v e s t i g a t o r D. Manuz who s t a t e d t h a t o n 0 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 0 5 a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2121 hours, you provided a urine sample in the presence of s t a f f which specimen I.D. #B01393816 was assigned. He s t a t e d that on 06-27-2005 confirmation was received from the National . Toxicology Laboratories indicating your urine sample tested positive for Amphetamines. He continued to state a review of your medical records on 06-27-2005, revealed that you were not prescribed any medications which would cause a positive t e s t result for Amphetamines. Second, the Laboratory Report dated 06-22-2005 for Specimen Number B01393816 which i n d i c a t e s a p o s i t i v e finding for Amphetamines. The report also contains the drug classes which your sample was t e s t e d for and the detection cutoff levels (levels in each category which would be considered positive) documented. The positive Laboratory Report was forwarded via mail to the institution after completion of the testing process. Thirdly, the Chain of Custody form dated 06-17-2005 for Specimen Number B01393816 which you signed c e r t i f y i n g t h a t the specimen was yours and t h a t i t was sealed in your presence and that the information on the form and label were correct. F o u r t h , y o u a p p e a r e d a t t h e DHO h e a r i n g a n d c h o s e t o exercise your right to remain silent regarding the specific charges against you. In conjunction with the a b o v e e v i d e n c e , t h e DHO h a s d r a w n a n a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e f r o m y o u r s i l e n c e . You f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n y e v i d e n c e t o 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

dispute t h e c h a r g e s . Y o u d i d , h o w e v e r , s t a t e " I d i d n ' t r e c e i v e my s h o t f o r 7 2 h o u r s . " Y o u d i d r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f the charges against you on 06-27-2005 a t 1320 hours. The incident report was subsequently returned for a r e - w r i t e due do [sic] an administrative error in the body of the report. However, you were s t i l l notified of the charges against you on 06-27-2005 a t 1320 as stated above. After a review of your Chain of Custody Form i t has been determined t h a t your sample was collected and sealed i n your presence by you providing your signature in the Inmate Certification area. T h e DHO a l s o r e v i e w e d y o u r National Toxicology Laboratories Report which stated that your urine sample was positive for Amphetamines. I d . , A t t a c h m e n t "DHO R e p o r t " , p p . 2 - 3 . Snyder exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the disciplinary hearing, and filed this action on August 14, 2008. He s e e k s a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g r e s p o n d e n t t o r e i n s t a t e t h e 4 0 d a y s o f good conduct time and to expunge the incident from his record.
DISCUSSION

under Wolff v. facing minimum,

McDonnell,

418

U.S.

539

(1974),

an inmate at a

administrative

disciplinary

charges (1)

is

entitled,

to the following protections:

to receive written

n o t i c e of the charges no l e s s than 24 hours before the d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g ; (2) t o p r e s e n t evidence and witnesses i n h i s defense where this will and not
(3)

jeopardize

institutional

safety or

correctional

goals;

to receive a written statement of the evidence Id. at

relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
563-69.

The record reveals Snyder received these protections.

Due process f u r t h e r r e q u i r e s t h a t "some evidence" support a prison disciplinary hearing decision. 5 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Superintendent v. H i l l , 472

U.S. 4 4 5 , 4 5 5 - 5 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; B a r n e t t v . C e n t o n i , 3 1 F . 3 d 8 1 3 , 8 1 5 ( 9 t h Cir. 1994); Bostic v. Carlson, "There 'must be some 884 F.2d 1267,1269-70 indicia of (9th Cir. of the

1989) .

reliability

information that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions. ' " Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 1990), c e r t . denied, 112 S.Ct. 213 (1991) (quoting Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. does 1987». not "Ascertaining whether this standard is examination of the entire record,

satisfied

require

independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence." Superintendent v. H i l l , 472 U.S. a t 455.

Notwi thstanding Snyder's assertions t h a t a serious mistake was made i n the t e s t i n g and/or handling of urine samples, a review of t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t DHO L o g a n c l e a r l y h a d b e f o r e h e r s o m e evidence, decision. SIS which had an indicia of r e l i a b i l i t y , to support her

That evidence included the incident report prepared by D. Manuz on June 27, 2005, which was later

Investigator

rewritten to cure an administrative error; the Laboratory Report dated June 22, 2005 for Specimen Number B01393816; and the Chain of Custody form dated June 17, 2005 for Specimen Number B01393816

which Snyder signed c e r t i f y i n g the specimen was h i s and t h a t i t was sealed in his presence. 2 E v e n i f DHO L o g a n ' s d e c i s i o n w a s w r o n g ,

2As a t t e s t e d t o b y A u t u m n N o r r i s , a B u r e a u o f P r i s o n s ( " B O P " ) legal assistant with access to records maintained in the ordinary c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s b y t h e BOP, t r u e a n d c o r r e c t c o p i e s o f t h e l a b report and chain of custody form are attached to respondent's Response to Petition for Habeas Corpus (#9), Exhibit 3, pp. 1-4. 6 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Snyder I

S

due process the DHO' s

rights were decision,

not or

violated by the

the hearing imposed.

process,

sanctions

Accordingly, Snyder i s not entitled to the relief sought herein.
RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, I recommend t h a t the P e t i t i o n for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) b e DENIED, and that judgment be entered

DISMISSING t h i s c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e .
SCHEDULING ORDER

Objections to these Findings and Recommendation, i f any, are due February 17, 2009. I f no objections are filed, then the

Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States District Judge for review and go under advisement on that date. If

objections are filed, any response to the objections will be due fourteen days after the date the objections are filed and review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
NOTICE

A party's failure to timely file objections to any of these findings will be considered a waiver of that party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues addressed herein and will constitute a waiver of the party's right to review of the findings of fact in any order or judgment entered by a d i s t r i c t

7 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

judge.

These Findings

and Recommendation are

not

immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Any notice of

appeal pursuant t o Rule 4(a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of judgment. DATED t h i s 3 r d d a y o f D F e b r a r y ,

V

Paul pap,s: United States Magistrate Judge

B ~!£.L<dP~ ad \
c

_

8 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION