Edmonson v. Gilley et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied. A separate order shall issue.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 5/1/17. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES EDMONSON,
Petitioner
Civil No. 3:16-cv-1743
(Judge Mariani)
v.
GILLEY,
Respondent
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, James Edmonson, an inmate currently confined at the
United States Penitentiary, Canaan, in Waymart, Pennsylvania ("USP-Canaan"). (Doc. 1).
Named as the sole Respondent is the Warden of USP-Canaan. Edmonson claims that his
due process rights were violated in the context of a prison disciplinary hearing. The petition
is ripe for disposition and, for the reasons that follow, will be denied.
I.
Background
On July 31, 2013, Edmonson was sentenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to a 52-month term of imprisonment for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, and knowingly transferring firearms to be
used in drug trafficking crimes. (Doc. 6-1, p. 2, Declaration of Michael Figgsganter, ~ 3;
Doc. 6-1, p. 5, Public Information Inmate Data). His projected release date is October 4,
2026, via good conduct time. (Doc. 6-1, p. 2, Declaration of Michael Figgsganter, ~ 3; Doc.
6-1, p. 4, Public Information Inmate Data).
On February 9, 2016, a correctional officer conducted a random search of
Edmonson's cell and found "a brown paste-like material" hidden under a toilet paper
wrapper located on top of the desk. (Doc. 6-1, p. 8, Incident Report). The substance was
referred to the Special Investigative Services office for testing with a NIK Test Kit E. (ld.).
The substance tested positive for marijuana. (Id.).
On February 10, 2016, Edmonson was charged in incident report number 2814364
with possession of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related
paraphernalia not prescribed for the individual by medical staff, and possession of anything
not authorized, in violation of Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Prohibited Acts Code
Sections 113 and 305. (Doc. 1, p. 9; Doc. 6-1, p. 8).
Adisciplinary hearing was held and the disciplinary hearing officer ("DHO") ultimately
found that Edmonson committed the prohibited act of possession of any narcotics,
marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the
individual by medical staff. The DHO expunged the charge of possession of anything not
authorized. (Doc. 6-1, pp. 11-14, DHO Report). The DHO sanctioned Edmonson with a
loss of 42 days of good conduct time, 60 days of disciplinary segregation, forfeiture of 41
days of non-vested good conduct time, 2 months impounding of personal property, 18
months loss of commissary privileges, 18 months loss of Trulincs privileges, 18 months loss
2
of visiting privileges and visiting restriction, and a monetary fine of $2.00. (ld. at p. 13).
The instant petition was filed on August 22,2016. (Doc. 1). In the petition,
Edmonson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the DHO to find him guilty
of acode 113 violation. (Id. at p. 5). For relief, Edmonson requests that the Court remand
the matter to USP-Canaan to conduct laboratory testing of the confiscated substance, and
that the Court expunge the incident report. (ld. at p. 6).
II.
Discussion
Respondent argues that the petition should be denied because Edmonson was
afforded all of his procedural rights, and "some evidence" supports the finding of the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer regarding incident report number 2814364. (Doc. 6, pp. 5-9).
As stated, on February 10, 2016, Edmonson was served with incident report number
2814364 charging him with violation of codes 113 and 305 for possession of any narcotics,
marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the
individual by medical staff, and possession of anything not authorized. (Doc. 6-1, p. 8).
The reporting officer described the incident as follows:
On 2/9/16 at approximately 6:15 pm, while conducting a random cell search
of BA Cell 114 assigned to inmate Edmonson, James 65606-054, this
reporting officer discovered a brown paste-like material hidden under [a] toilet
paper wrapper located on top of the desk. The substance was sent to SIS
tech Brandt for testing. SIS Tech Brandt utilized NIK test Kit E. The
substance tested positive for cannabis paste, thus resulting in the above
charges.
3
(Doc. 6-1, p. 8, Incident Report,
~
11).
On February 10, 2016, the investigating lieutenant gave Edmonson advanced written
notice of the charges against him. (Id. at ~~ 14-16).
During the investigation, Edmonson was advised of his right to remain silent, he
indicated that he had "no statement" regarding the charges, he exhibited a poor attitude,
and did not request any witnesses on his behalf. (Doc. 6-1, p. 9, ~~ 23-25). At the
conclusion of the investigation, the lieutenant determined that the report was true and
correct as written, and Edmonson remained housed in the Special Housing Unit. (Id. at W
26-27).
On February 11, 2016, Edmonson appeared before the Unit Discipline Committee
("UDC"). (Doc. 6-1, p. 8, ~~ 17-21; Doc. 6-1, p. 26). Edmonson acknowledged that he was
advised of his rights, he indicated that understood his rights, and had "no comment"
regarding the charges. (Doc. 6-1, p. 26). Due to the seriousness of the alleged act, the
UDC referred the charges to the DHO with a recommendation that sanctions be imposed if
Edmonson was found guilty of the alleged prohibited acts. (ld.).
On February 11, 2016, a staff member provided Edmonson with a copy of the
"Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing" form and "Notice of Discipline Hearing before the
Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO)" form. (Doc. 6-1, pp. 27-29). Edmonson refused to signed
for his copies of the forms. (ld.). Edmonson did not request to have a staff member
4
represent him and did not request to call any witnesses on his behalf. (Id. at p. 27).
On February 15, 2016, Edmonson appeared for a hearing before DHO Marc A.
Renda. (Doc. 6-1, pp. 11-14, DHO Report). During the February 15, 2016 DHO hearing,
the DHO confirmed that Edmonson received advanced written notice of the charges on
February 10, 2016, that he had been advised of his rights before the DHO on February 11,
2016, and that Edmonson waived his right to a staff representative. (Doc. 6-1, p. 11, § I).
The DHO again advised Edmonson of his rights and Edmonson indicated that he
understood them. (Doc. 6-1, p. 11, § III). Edmonson made the following statement
regarding the charges:
"It's not what they say it is. I don't use drugs."
When further interrogatories were posed by the DHO['1 Edmonson admitted
ownership of the brown paste-like substance as depicted in photographic
evidence, testified "I take the jelly and smoke cigarettes with it.", and also
stated "You burn it. It gives you a sweet taste."
(Doc. 6-1, p. 11, § 111,8).
Upon consideration of the evidence, the DHO found that Edmonson was guilty of a
code 113 violation, and explained his decision as follows:
The DHO finds based on the greater weight of the evidence that on February
9,2016, at approximately 6:15 PM, as the reporting staff member conducted
a search of cell 114 aSSigned to EDMONSON in the 81 housing unit, he
discovered a brown paste-like material hidden under a toilet paper wrapper
on the top desk, which subsequently yielded a positive reading with the NIK
test kit Efor Cannabis [Marijuana1.
5
Specific evidence relied on to support this finding is the eyewitness account of
the reporting staff member, as reflected in the incident report. He indicates:
On 2/9/16 at approximately 6:15 pm, while conducting a
random cell search of BA Cell 114 assigned to inmate
Edmonson, James 65606-054, this reporting officer discovered
a brown paste-like material hidden under [a] toilet paper
wrapper located on top of the desk. The substance was sent to
SIS tech Brandt for testing. SIS Tech Brandt utilized NIK test
Kit E. The substance tested positive for cannabis paste, thus
resulting in the above charges.
The DHO also relied upon a memorandum dated February 9,2016, from N.
Brandt, SIS Technician, which reflects in pertinent part, on the date of the
incident she was notified by the Operations Lieutenant that the B1 housing
unit officer discovered a brown paste substance inside a bottle cap during a
search of a cell, upon arrival at the lieutenant's office she observed said
substance, and testified [sic] an amount of the substance with the NIK test kit
Eresulting in a positive test for Marijuana; as well as five photographs
depicting NIK test kit E, and brown paste-like substance in a bottle cap.
The DHO considered and affords little weight to EDMONSON's plea "It's not
what they say it is. I don't use drugs.", and when further interrogatories were
posed by the DHO he admitted ownership of the brown paste-like substance
as depicted in photographic evidence, testified "I take the jelly and smoke
cigarettes with it.", and also stated "You burn it. It gives you a sweet taste."
The DHO finds his plea fails to eXCUlpate him of the charge.
EDMONSON disputes the fact the substance found in his cell was marijuana,
and claim[s] the substance was jelly and [he] smokes cigarettes with it. While
this would also constitute prohibited conduct, it fails to negate his culpability.
Here EDMONSON is attempting to hammer a rivet in a custard pie.
The facts and evidence SUbstantiate the substance discovered in
EDMONSON's cell was tested in accord with agency procedure and protocol,
resulted in a positive test for marijuana, and as such the hearing officer will
sustain the charge.
6
Contraband by definition is "material prohibited by law, or by regulation, or
material that can reasonably be expected to cause physical injury or
adversely affect the security, safety, or good order of the institution." Rules
regarding inmate property contribute to the management of inmate personal
property in the institution, and contribute to a safe environment for staff and
inmates by reducing fire hazards, security risks, and sanitation problems
which relate to inmate personal property.
The DHO considered all evidence and has drawn the conclusion that based
on the greater weight of the evidence that the prohibited act of Possession of
Any Narcotics, Marijuana, Drugs, Alcohol, Intoxicants, or Related
Paraphernalia, Not Prescribed for the Individual by the Medical Staff (Code
113) was committed. The lesser series charge of Possession of Anything Not
Authorized (Code 305) was expunged as the elements of his actions most
satisfies that of Code 113.
(Doc. 6-1, pp. 12-13, § V).
The DHO reiterated that, in addition to the incident report and investigation, the
documentary evidence which he considered in making his determination included the
memorandum from the SIS Technician, the memorandum from the reporting officer, and
five photographs depicting the NIK test kit E and the brown paste-like substance in a bottle
cap. (Doc. 6-1, p. 12, § III, D). Edmonson presented no documentary evidence in support
of his claim.
After consideration of the evidence, the DHO found that the greater weight of the
evidence supported a finding that Edmonson committed the prohibited act of "Possession of
Any Narcotics, Marijuana, Drugs, Alcohol, Intoxicants, or Related Paraphernalia, Not
Prescribed for the Individual by the Medical Staff (Code 113)." (Doc. 6-1, p. 13, § V). As
7
such, the DHO sanctioned Edmonson with a loss of 42 days of good conduct time, 60 days
of disciplinary segregation, forfeiture of 41 days of non-vested good conduct time, 2 months
impounding of personal property, 18 months loss of commissary privileges, 18 months loss
of Trulincs privileges, 18 months loss of visiting privileges and visiting restriction, and a
monetary fine of $2.00. (Jd. at p. 13, § VI). The DHO documented his reasons for the
sanctions given as follows:
The action/behavior on the part of any inmate to possess or use drugs or
drug paraphernalia threatens not only the health, safety and welfare of
himself, but that of all other inmates and staff within the institution. In the
past, inmates under the influence of drugs have become violent toward other
inmates, as well as staff, and this type of behavior cannot and will not be
tolerated. The possession or use of illegal substances is illegal by federal
law, and impedes the orderly running of a correctional institution. Illegal
substances can only be obtained via unauthorized avenues.
The effects of marijuana [or cannabis] vary with its strength and dosage and
with the state of mind of the user. Typically, small doses result in a feeling of
well-being. The intoxication lasts two to three hours, but accompanying
effects on motor control last much longer. High doses can cause tachycardia,
paranoia, and delusions. Although it produces some of the same effects as
hallucinogens like LSD. Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects
when consumed. The immediate desired effects from consuming cannabis
include relaxation and mild euphoria (the "high" or "stoned" feeling), while
some immediate undesired side-effects include a decrease in short-term
memory, dry mouth, impaired motor skills and reddening of the eyes. Aside
from a subjective change in perception and, most notably, mood, the most
common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart
rate, increased appetite and consumption of foodL] lowered blood pressure,
impairment of short-term and working memory, psychomotor coordination,
and concentration.
The sanctions imposed by the DHO were taken to let the inmate know that
8
he, and he alone, will be held responsible for his behavior. The DHO will note
for the record this inmate presents an extensive disciplinary history to include
prior infractions for assault, use of drugs/alcohol, insolence, refusing to obey
orders of staff, as well as demonstrates a continued inability to abide by
institution rule. Chronic misconduct is corrosive towards correctional
objectives. EDMONSON has earned multiple harsh marks on his disciplinary
record. This conduct undermines the security and orderly running of
correctional institutions, and is contrary to the foundation of good citizenship.
Disciplinary segregation, forfeiture of non-vested good conduct time, and
disallowance of good conduct time was imposed to demonstrate the
seriousness of his actions and as punishment for his conduct. The losses of
commissary, TRULINCS, and visiting privileges, followed by a period of
visiting restriction, as well as impounding of property and monetary fine, were
imposed to deter further behavior. It is hoped that these sanctions prompt
EDMONSON to modify his behavior and deter others from engaging in such
activities in the future.
(Doc. 6-1, p. 14, § VII).
Edmonson was advised of his appeal rights at the conclusion of the hearing. (Doc.
6-1, p. 14, § VIII).
Edmonson's sanctions included the loss of good conduct time, therefore he has
identified a liberty interest in this matter. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall ... be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. CONST. AMEND. V. Federal inmates
possess a liberty interest in good conduct time. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
555-57 (1974); Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1399 (3d Cir. 1991).
In Wolff, the Supreme Court set forth the following minimum procedural due process
9
rights to be afforded to a prisoner accused of misconduct in prison which may result in the
loss of good time credit: (1) the right to appear before an impartial decision-making body;
(2) twenty-four hour advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (3) an opportunity to
call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when it is consistent with
institutional safety and correctional goals; (4) assistance from an inmate representative if
the charged inmate is illiterate or complex issues are involved; and (5) a written decision by
the fact finder of the evidence relied upon and the rationale behind the disciplinary action.
Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67. The Supreme Court has held that the standard of review with
regard to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is "any evidence in the record that
could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Superintendent v. Hill, 472
U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985); see also Griffin v. Spratt, 969 F.2d 16, 19 (3d Cir. 1992). If there
is "some evidence" to support the decision of the hearing examiner, the court must reject
any evidentiary challenges by the plaintiff. Hill, 472 U.S. at 457.
The Bureau of Prisons' inmate disciplinary procedures are codified at 28 C.F.R. §
541, et seq., and entitled: Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Units. These procedures
are intended to meet or exceed the due process requirements prescribed by the Supreme
Court. See Von Kahl v. Brennan, 855 F. Supp. 1413, 1418 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Pursuant to
these regulations, staff shall prepare an incident report when there is reasonable belief that
a violation of BOP regulations has been committed by an inmate and the staff considers
10
informal resolution of the incident inappropriate or unsuccessful. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5. The
incident is then referred to the UDC for an initial hearing pursuant to § 541.7. The UDC "will
ordinarily review the incident report within five work days after it is issued, not counting the
day it was issued, weekends, and holidays." 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(c). This period may be
extended if the incident is being investigated for possible criminal prosecution. 28 C.F.R. §
541.4(c). If the UDC finds that a prisoner has committed a prohibited act, it may impose
minor sanctions. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(~. If the alleged violation is serious and warrants
consideration for more than minor sanctions, or involves a prohibited act listed in the
greatest severity category, the UDC must refer the matter to a disciplinary hearing officer for
a hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(a), (g). The inmate will receive written notice of the charge(s)
against him at least twenty-four hours before the DHO's hearing, however the inmate may
waive this requirement. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(c). The inmate is entitled to have a staff
representative, appear at the hearing, make a statement, present documentary evidence,
and present witnesses. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(d), (e),
(~.
Following the hearing, the inmate will
receive a written copy of the DHO's decision. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h).
In the matter sub judice, it is clear that Edmonson was afforded all of the required
procedural rights set forth in Wolff. He received timely notice of the incident report. He was
properly informed of his rights before the hearing, as well as given the opportunity to make
his own statement, present documentary evidence, have a staff representative, and to
11
(
,
I
present witnesses on his behalf. Edmonson declined astaff representative, declined to call
any witnesses, and presented no evidence in support of his position. At the conclusion of
the hearing, Edmonson received a written decision setting forth the evidence relied upon by
the DHO and the rationale behind the decision. Edmonson was also notified of his right to
appeal.
Since Edmonson was afforded all of his procedural rights, the only remaining issue is
whether there was sufficient evidence to support the decision by the DHO. The record
clearly reveals the existence of evidence to allow the DHO to conclude that Edmonson was
guilty of the charge. The DHO relied on the eyewitness account and memorandum of the
reporting ofHcer, the February 9,2016 memorandum from SIS Technician N. Brandt who
performed the NIK test indicating that the substance tested positive for marijuana, and five
photographs depicting the NIK test kit Eand brown paste-like substance in a bottle cap.
(Doc. 6-1, p. 10; Doc. 6-1, p. 12, § D). The DHO also considered Edmonson's admission
that the brown paste-like substance belonged to him. (Doc. 6-1, p. 12, § V). The DHO
gave little weight to Edmonson's claim that the substance was not marijuana and his claim
that he does not use drugs. (Doc. 6-1, p. 13, § V). Based upon this evidence as relied
upon by the DHO, and without any contradictory evidence submitted by Edmonson, except
his self-serving denial of the prohibited act charged, the Court finds that Edmonson's due
process rights were not violated by the determination of the DHO.
12
\
I
I
t
;
Finally, the Court finds that all sanctions imposed by the DHO were within the limits
of 28 C.F.R. § 541, et seq. Edmonson was found guilty of a 100 level, greatest severity
w
prohibited act. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, the following are the sanctions available for
i
,
!
!
!
J
!
1OO~level offenses:
A.
B.
Recommend parole date rescission or retardation.
Forfeit and/or withhold earned statutory good time or non-vested good
conduct time (up to 100%) and/or terminate or disallow extra good time (an
extra good time or good conduct time sanction may not be suspended).
B.1. Disallow ordinarily between 50% and 75% (27-41 days) of good conduct time
credit available for year (a good conduct time sanction may not be
suspended).
C. Disciplinary segregation (up to 12 months).
D. Make monetary restitution.
E. Monetary fine.
F.
Loss of privileges (e.g., visiting, telephone, commissary, movies, recreation).
G. Change housing (quarters).
H. Remove from program and/or group activity.
I.
Loss of job.
J. Impound inmate's personal property.
K. Confiscate contraband.
L.
Restrict to quarters.
M. Extra duty.
28 C.F.R. § 541.3 (Table 1). Thus, the sanctions imposed by the DHO in this instance were
consistent with the severity level of the prohibited act and within the maximum available to
the DHO. Accordingly, the petition will be denied as to incident report number 2814364.
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied. A
separate order shall issue.
13
j
,--
Date: May
I
l)jf , 2017
un~:~
lam
States District Judge
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
t
~
!
14
I
j
i
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?