LOCKETT v. FCI MCKEAN, WARDEN
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 2/26/2019. (dm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN N. LOCKETT, III,
Petitioner,
V.
FCI MCKEAN, WARDEN,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 18-14 Erie
Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by federal
prisoner John N. Lockett, III ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 3. He is
challenging a disciplinary action taken against him in which he lost good conduct sentencing
credit. As relief, he seeks an order from this Court directing that his incident report be expunged
so that he may be restored the good conduct time he lost as a sanction. For the reasons set forth
below, the petition is denied.
I.
Relevant Background
Petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution McKean ("FCI
McKean"), which is located within the territorial boundaries of this Court. On June 21, 2017, at
approximately 10:00 a.m., a corrections officer searched his cell and found a bag of marijuana
inside a wall locker. ECF No. 7-5 at 5. The officer filed an incident report and Petitioner was
charged with violating the Bureau of Prison's (the "BOP's") regulation that prohibits
"[p ]ossession of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia,
not prescribed for the individual by the medical staff." 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Prohibited Act 113.
The matter was referred to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO"), who held a hearing
on July 19, 2017. At the hearing, Petitioner stated, as he had during the initial investigation of the
incident report, that the drugs found in his cell's wall locker were not his and that another inmate
must have placed them there. ECF No. 7-5 at 3. Petitioner requested that Chaplain Richard
Glogau serve as his staff representative at his DHO hearing, but the chaplain reported to the
DHO that he reviewed the security "camera footage for the day in question and did not find any
evidence of any other inmates entering [Petitioner's] assigned cell that day." ECF No. 7-5 at 2.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO "found no evidence to support [Petitioner's
claim that he was] set up." ECF No. 7-5 at 3. Explaining that Petitioner is "responsible to keep
all areas under [his] control free from contraband[,]" and that his "assigned cell is an area under
[his] control," the DHO found that Petitioner committed the prohibited act as charged. Id. As part
of his sanctions, Petitioner was disallowed 27 days of good conduct time. Id.
Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the DHO's decision through the BOP's administrative
review process. ECF No. 3-1 at 3-5; ECF No. 3-2 at 5-8. In denying Petitioner's appeal, the
BOP's Administrator of National Inmate Appeals explained:
You deny the charge ... and note several staff and inmates were moving all over
the unit during the mass shakedown. You state the drugs were not found in your
assigned locker, and you should not be held responsible for a vacant wall
locker ....
.. .. We find the DH O's decision was based upon the greater weight of the evidence
as detailed in Section V of the DHO report and the determination of the DHO is
reasonable and supported by the evidence presented. This includes the fact that
the drugs were found inside a wall locker in your assigned cell. You were the only
inmate assigned to the cell when the contraband was found. As informed, you are
responsible for keeping your assigned areas free of contraband. In addition, your
due process rights were upheld during the discipline process and the sanctions
imposed, to include a loss of [good conduct time], were commensurate to the
severity level of the offense committed and in compliance with policy.
ECF No. 3-2 at 5 (emphasis added).
2
In the petition that he filed with this Court, ECF No. 3, and in the accompanying brief,
ECF No. 4, Petitioner claims that the disciplinary sanctions were imposed in violation of his due
process rights because the DHO's findings were not supported by sufficient evidence.
Respondent (Petitioner's custodian, the Warden of FCI McKean) filed an answer, ECF No. 7, to
which Petitioner filed a reply, ECF No. 8.
II.
Discussion
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 2241 to considers Petitioner's claim, since
he is challenging the BO P's execution of his sentence and the sanction of loss of good conduct
time. Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2013); Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253,254 (3d
Cir. 2008). "Federal prisoners serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year have a
statutory right to receive credit toward their sentence for good conduct." Id. (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624 (b); 28 C.F.R. § 523.20). "When such a statutorily created right exists, 'a prisoner has a
constitutionally protected liberty interest in good time credit."' Id. at 143-44 (quoting Young v.
Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1399 (3d Cir. 1991), which cited Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 55657 (1974)). Therefore, Petitioner was entitled "'to those minimum procedures appropriate under
the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause to insure that the state-created right is
not arbitrarily abrogated."' Id. at 144 (quoting Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557).
In Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,455 (1985), the Supreme Court held "that the
requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison
disciplinary board to revoke good time credits." (Emphasis added). It further explained:
This standard is met if "there was some evidence from which the conclusion of
the administrative tribunal could be deduced .... " United States ex rel. Vajtauer v.
Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. [103], at 106, 47 S.Ct. [302], at 304
[(1927)]. Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require
examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of
witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether
3
there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by
the disciplinary board. See ibid.; United States ex rel. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U.S. 131,
133-134, 44 S.Ct. 260, 260-261, 68 L.Ed. 590 (1924); Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d
1011, 1018 (CA8 1974). We decline to adopt a more stringent evidentiary
standard as a constitutional requirement. Prison disciplinary proceedings take
place in a highly charged atmosphere, and prison administrators must often act
swiftly on the basis of evidence that might be insufficient in less exigent
circumstances. See Wolff, 418 U.S., at 562-563, 567-569, 94 S.Ct., at 2977-2978,
2980-2981. The fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Due Process Clause does
not require courts to set aside decisions of prison administrators that have some
basis in fact. Revocation of good time credits is not comparable to a criminal
conviction, id., at 556, 94 S.Ct., at 2974, and neither the amount of evidence
necessary to support such a conviction, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), nor any other standard greater than some
evidence applies in this context.
Id. at 455-56.
The DH O's decision at issue in this case was based upon the requisite amount of evidence
necessary to survive review by a federal habeas court. The corrections officer found the bag of
marijuana in Petitioner's cell. Petitioner's chosen staff representative, Chaplain Glogau, reviewed
the video footage concerning the date of the incident and he did not provide any information to
the DHO to support Petitioner's defense to the charge. And as the DHO and the BOP's
Administrator of National Inmate Appeals explained to Petitioner, it is his responsibility to keep
his cell free from contraband. Therefore, because the marijuana was found in his cell, there was
"some evidence" to support the DHO's decision.
The "some evidence" standard has been found to have been met even in cases where an
inmate shares his cell with another inmate and it cannot be determined who was responsible for
the contraband. For example, in Denny, two shanks were discovered in the duct work above the
sink between the petitioner's cell, which he shared with one other inmate, and an adjacent cell.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the petitioner's
habeas petition, holding:
4
In a shared cell, all parts of the cell are equally accessible to each prisoner
housed in the cell. Thus, each individual prisoner is responsible for keeping the
entire cell free from contraband. Because each prisoner in a shared cell has an
affirmative responsibility to keep the entire cell, and all other space accessible
from within the cell, free from contraband, it follows that any contraband found
within the cell is constructively possessed by each of the inmates housed in that
cell. Thus, the mere discovery of contraband in a shared cell constitutes "some
evidence" that each prisoner in that cell possessed the contraband.
In the case before us, it is undisputed that two homemade shanks were
found in a space accessible from within Denny's cell. This evidence, by itself,
constitutes "some evidence" that Denny possessed the weapons in question.
Denny, 708 F.3d at 147 (emphasis added). The decision in Denny forecloses any argument on
Petitioner's part that there was not "some evidence" to support the DHO's decision in his case.
In conclusion, the DHO did not violate Petitioner's due process rights when he found that
Petitioner committed the prohibited act as charged. Therefore, the Court will deny his petition.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
26th
AND NOW, this_ day of February, 2019, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 1
~L~J~
United States Magistrate Judge
28 U.S.C. § 2253 sets forth the standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for
appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition. Federal prisoner appeals from the denial of a
§ 2241 habeas corpus proceeding are not governed by the certificate of appealability requirement. United States v.
Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-65 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134
(2012).
5
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?