Lane v. Feathers

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 6/27/2013 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (gw)

J)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No. 3:13-cv-00100-PA

MARK ALAN LANE,

OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner,
v.

MARION FEATHERS,
Respondent.
PANNER, District Judge.
Petitioner brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action
challenging a 2009 prison disciplinary decision finding him guilty
of Threatening Another with Bodily Harm in violation of Code 203.
According to petitioner, the Disciplinary Hearings Officer wrongly
found him guilty of this charge because he did not direct his
threat to "take a life" at any specific person.

The court has

rejected this line of reasoning in each of petitioner's last two
challenges to different incidents involving his violations of Code
203.

See Lane v.

3:12-cv-02360-PA.

Feathers,

3:13-cv-00005-PA;

Consistent

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

with

those

Lane v.

decisions,

Feathers,
the

court

likewise denies relief in this case on the basis that the Bureau of
Prisons has reasonably interpreted Code 203 to apply to threats of
bodily injury not directed at a specific, identifiable individual,
and this interpretation is entitled to deference.
of Home

Builders

V;

Defenders

of

Wildlife,

551

1

National Ass'n

U.S.

644,

672

(2007) .
The Petition also vaguely notes that "A prisoner facing the
loss

of

good

protections[,]"

conduct
but

time

is

entitled

petitioner

procedural due process claim.

does

to

not

certain
raise

any

procedural
specific

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 present evidence,
and

a

written

McDonnell,

decision

from

the

DHO

418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974).

3-4; Attachment 5.

as

required

by

Wolff

Comstock Declaration, pp.

Accordingly, relief on the Petition is denied.
CONCLUSION

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

n

day

0~~·-:013.

.

!)

..(_.....,..,=
Owen M. Panner
United States District Judge

1

v.

Declaration of Jerrie Comstock, p. 4.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER