Lane v. Feathers

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is denied. Signed on 6/24/2013 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

L

MARK ALAN LANE,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00005-PA
Petitioner,

v.
MARION FEATHERS,
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent.
Mark Alan Lane
06503-028
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 5000
Sheridan, OR 97378
Petitioner,

Pro Se

S. Amanda Marshall
United States Attorney
Natalie Wight, Assistant United States Attorney
1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Attorneys for Respondent
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

PANNER, District Judge.
Petitioner
U.S.C.

§

( "GCT")
2011.

brings

this

habeas

corpus

case

pursuant

to

28

2241 challenging the loss of 27 days of Good Conduct Time
following

a prison disciplinary hearing on January 21,

For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (#2) is denied.
BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a federal prisoner qt FCI-Sheridan, was previously
housed at the Low Security Correctional Institution
Butner,
case.

( "LCSI")

in

North Carolina during the time period rel12vant to this
On December 15, 2010, he was given an incident report for

violation of Bureau of Prisons
Another with Bodily Harm."
matter contained a

("BOP")

Code 203 for "Threatening

The

Incident Report governing this

statement by Special

Investigative

Services

("SIS") Technician Gilbert Grimaldo which reads as follows:
On
12/15/10,
at
9:00
a.m.,
an
SIS
investigation was completed which concluded
that on 12/7/10, 9:57a.m., the U.S. Marshals
Service out of the Southern District of
Indiana notified the LCSI SIS Office that
inmate Lane 06503-028 authored a threatening
letter.
Specifically, on 12/7/10, at 9:57
a.m. the U.S. Marshals Service stated to SIS
that they received a copy of a threatening
letter addressed to the Senate Judiciary
Committees, and Representative Mike Pence from
Bradley Blackington, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of Indiana.
In the contents of the letter, inmate Lane
"I want to expose this criminal
states,
The Bureau of Prisons may not take
matter!
action. I may be forced to protect myself and
2 - OPINION AND ORDER

take a life.
I'm doing my best to avoid
trouble.
I will never let the Federal
Government violate my rights, and not take
action."
Based on the statements,
Lane
displays a threatening intent to cause deadly
harm.
During the SIS investigation, inmate Lane was
questioned about the letter.
Lane admitted
authoring the
letter but denied it was
threatening. When questioned, [whose] life he
(Lane) was planning on taking or harming?
Lane simply stated, "I can't predict the
future." Based on the content of the letter,
Lane expresses a threatening message that he
will
kill
or
cause
deadly
harm
while
incarcerated if his judiciary request is not
reviewed and during questioning Lane did not
deny his intent of "taking a life."
Declaration of Jeffrey Tilley, Attachment 4, p. 1;
The Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") conducted a hearing
on

January

writing

the

21,

During

2011.

letter,

but

the

claimed

hearing,
it

defense, not a threat of bodily harm."

was

"a

petitioner admitted
statement

of

self-

Id, Attachment 5, p. 1.

At

the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO found petitioner guilty as
charged and sanctioned him with the loss of 27 days GCT,
disciplinary segregation,

15 days

18 months loss of telephone privileges

(suspended 180 days), and one year loss of email.

Id, Attachment

5, p. 2.

On January 2, 2013, petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus in which he alleges that the DHO's decision was not

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

supported by "some evidencen and, thus, violates his right to due
process of law.

1

DISCUSSION

In Superintendent v.

Hill,

472 U.S.

445

(1985),

the Supreme

Court held that due process during a prison disciplinary hearing
requires that "some evidence" exist to support the findings made
during such a hearing.

Id at 455.

Petitioner will prevail if the

record in this case is "so devoid of evidence that the findings of
[DHO] were without support or otherwise arbitrary."

the .

Id

at 457.
The DHO in this case found petitioner guilty of the Code 203
violation because:
question;
intent

to

(2)

(1)

petitioner admitted writing the letter in

petitioner's statements in the letter displayed an

cause

deadly

harm;

and

(3)

when

he

was

given

an

opportunity to explain his remarks, petitioner simply stated that
he could not predict the future.
p.

2.

According

insufficient

to

to

Tilley Declaration, Attachment 5,

petitioner,

satisfy

due

the

process

DHO's

because

findings
the

charge

were
of

Threatening Another with Bodily Harm pursuant to Code 203 requires

1

The Petition also vaguely notes that "A prisoner facing
the loss of good conduct time is entitled to certain procedural
protections[,)n but petitioner does not raise any specific
procedural due process claim.
To the extent he intends to allege
that his disciplinary hearing lacked the appropriate procedural
protections, it is clear petitioner was given written notice of
his hearing, sufficient opportunity to be heard, and a written
decision from the DHO as required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 563-66 (1974).
Tilley Declaration, pp. 3-4; Attachment 5.
4 - OPINION AND ORDER

that the threat be made to a specific person.
because he did not

threaten a

evidence to support his

He contends that

particular person,

conviction

such that

his

there was no
right

to due

process of law was violated.
According to the DHO,
Disciplinary
required."

Code

203,

a

"[f] or an inmate to be charged with
specifically

Tilley Declaration, p. 4.

named

victim

is

not

"An agency's interpretation

of the meaning of its own regulations is entitled to deference
unless plainly erroneous

or inconsistent with the

regulation."

National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S.·

644,

672

erroneous

(2007)
nor

Because this interpretation is neither plainly
inconsistent

with

the

regulation,

petitioner's

argument that he did not direct his threat toward a particular
person such that he is innocent of any wrongdoing is unavailing.
The

court

also

notes

that

petitioner presented this

same

argument when challenging a separate Code 203 violation in Lane v.
Feathers, 3:12-cv-02360-PA, and the court similarly denied relief.

Because it is clear from the record that there was at least "some
evidence" to support the DHO's finding of guilt in petitioner's
prison disciplinary hearing, relief on the Petition is denied.

Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
5 - OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION

For the reasons identified above,

the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (#2) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

.

•'

..:::...

~day

~e,2~~
~Panner District Judge
United States

6 - OPINION AND ORDER