Sanders v. Upton
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 8/24/2012. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
WARREN SANDERS
§
VS.
§
JODY UPTON
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv406
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Warren Sanders, an inmate confined within the Bureau of Prisons, proceeding pro se,
filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the
court is a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. As the respondent has
presented information outside the pleadings, the filing will be considered as a motion for
summary judgment. See FED .R.CIV .P. 12(d).
Factual Background
On November 17, 2008, incident report number 1801453 charged petitioner with
engaging in sexual acts. The incident report stated that on November 17, 2008, a teacher at the
Federal Correctional Institution at Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, was locking the educational rooms
when she noticed petitioner sitting in a dark classroom. The incident report reflects that the
teacher stated: “[petitioner] had his hand inside his pants and was moving his hand in an up and
down motion on his penis area.”
Petitioner received a copy of the incident report on November 18, 2008. On November
19, petitioner appeared before the Unit Discipline Committee. The committee referred the
charge to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”).
On December 15, 2008, the DHO conducted a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the DHO found petitioner guilty of the offense with which he was charged. The following
punishment was assessed: (a) placement in disciplinary segregation for 30 days; (b) loss of
telephone, commissary and visiting privileges for 18 months; (c) disallowance of 27 days of good
conduct time and (d) forfeiture of 58 days of non-vested good conduct time. The DHO explained
his reasoning as follows:
Sanders involvement in the incident as noted in ... Incident Report 1801453 ...
was viewed as inculpatory in this case. Paraphrased, [the teacher] writes: On
Monday, November 17, 2008, while locking the education classrooms for the
evening, I noticed ... Sanders ... setting [sic.] in a dark classroom. From outside
of the classroom I noticed he had his hand inside of his pants and was moving
his hand [in] an up and down motion on his penis area. When I entered the
classroom, I turned the light on and asked him what he was doing. He replied,
“I’m fixing my pants.” I told him I saw what he was doing and asked him for
his ID card. I then told him to sit in the library area while I contacted the
Lieutenant.
The DHO believed the information provided by the staff members involved in
this case, as they derived no known benefit by providing false information. The
DHO finds the charge substantiated based on the inmate’s actions. The inmate
could not read or conduct any school work in a darkened classroom. His actions
of masturbating is considered a sexual act due to the act ... being a sexual self
gratification. The staff’s observation of this act warranted the report to be written.
Upon questioning by the DHO, ... Sanders ... denied the charge(s). He elaborated
upon his plea by stating, the report is untrue.
After the consideration of evidence ... the DHO has drawn the conclusion the greater
weight of the evidence ... support(s) the finding ... Sanders... committed the prohibited acts ....
Grounds for Review
Petitioner contends the teacher is a bitter racist who harassed him and who wrote a false
incident report against him. He also states there was insufficient evidence to support the
2
conviction because the teacher would not have been able to see what he was doing in a darkened
room.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if “the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.1 See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);
Ellison v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 85 f.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 1996). A dispute about a material
fact is genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. ” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Judwin Props., Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 973
F.2d 432, 425 (5th Cir. 1992).
On summary judgment, “[t]he moving party has the burden of proving there is no genuine
[dispute] of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Rivera v.
Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 349 F.3d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, “the non-moving party must
show that summary judgment is appropriate by setting forth specific facts showing the existence
of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.” Rivera, 349 F.3d at 247.
The nonmovant’s burden “is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,
by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.”
1
This language reflects the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which came into effect
on December 1, 2010. These amendments moved language from Rule 56(c) to Rule 56(a) and changed the Rule to
read “genuine dispute as to any material fact,” rather than “genuine issue as to any material fact.” As the Committee
Note to Rule 56 makes clear, the new language “carries forward the summary judgment standard expressed in former
subdivision (c).”
3
Willis v. Roche Biomedical Labs, Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1885); see also Brown v.
Houston, 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003).
As summary judgment is a final adjudication on the merits, courts must employ the
device cautiously. Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v.
Procunier, 789 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1986). In prisoner pro se cases, courts must be careful to
“guard against premature truncation of legitimate lawsuits merely because of unskilled presentations.” Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Murrell v. Bennett,
615 F.2d 306, 311 (5th Cir. 1980)). Summary judgment is not appropriate unless, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable jury could return a
verdict for that party. Rubenstein v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392, 399 (5th
Cir. 2000).
Analysis
Prison inmates who lose good conduct time credits as a result of prison disciplinary
convictions are entitled to the procedural due process protections set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539 (1974). See Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 1994). As petitioner was
deprived of good conduct time credits as a result of the disciplinary conviction complained of, he
was entitled to: (1) written notice of the charges against him at least 24 hours before the hearing;
(2) a written statement of the fact-finder as to the evidence relied on and the reason for the
disciplinary action and (3) the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in
his defense. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-66.
In addition, there must have been "some evidence" to support the petitioner's conviction.
Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1983). The result
4
of a prison disciplinary proceeding will be overturned by a federal court "only where there is no
evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison officials." Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d
1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994).
"Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require an examination of the
entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, or weighing of the
evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56. "Federal
Courts will not review the sufficiency of the evidence at a disciplinary hearing; a finding of guilt
requires only the support of 'some facts' or 'any evidence at all.'" Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040,
1044 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1117 (1986) (citation omitted).
Petitioner states there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because the
teacher would not have been able to see what he was doing in a darkened room. He also states
that the teacher’s testimony was not credible because it was motivated by racial animus.
As explained above, the level of review applicable to claims of insufficient evidence to
support a disciplinary conviction is highly deferential and does not require the court to weigh the
evidence and come to the same conclusion as the DHO. With this standard in mind, it must be
concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary conviction. The teacher
stated she observed petitioner masturbating. This statement constitutes “some evidence” that
petitioner engaged in the prohibited acts. The decision as to whether to find the testimony of the
teacher credible based on the lighting in the room and any racial animus on the part of th teacher
5
was for the DHO.2 On federal habeas review, this court may not substitute its judgment
regarding credibility of witnesses for that of the DHO. As a result, there is no genuine dispute of
material fact as to petitioner’s grounds for review and the respondent is entitled to summary
judgment.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. A final judgment shall be entered denying this petition for writ of habeas corpus.
SIGNED this the 24 day of August, 2012.
____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
2
Nor has petitioner established the teacher denied him equal protection of the laws because there is no
indication she treated inmates belonging to other racial groups differently.
6
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?