Major-Davis v. Quarterman

Filing 17

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER... Major-Davis's petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied. All pending motions not previously ruled upon, including Major-Davis's motion for a Spears hearing (docket entry #16) are denied. Objections to F&R due by 11/20/2009. See findings for further specifics. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Charles Bleil on 10/30/2009) (krg)(copy to petitioner)

U . S .DISTRICT COI-]RT N O N T H D R N DISTRICT O$ TEXAS

FILED

{''1?".\ti\\tr

l', \ i ' * t'-

I N THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT F ' O RTHE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF F O R T WORTH DIVISION

RT

3 OcT 0 20ffi

SAMUELJOHN MAJOR-DAVIS, Petitioner,
v.

C L E ]R K , U.S.DISTRICT COURT By

$ $
$ $
$ S S $ $ Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-352-Y

R I C K THALER, Director, T e x a sDepartmentof Criminal Justiceo C o r r e c t i o n a lInstitutionsDivision, Respondent.

F I N D I N G S . CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATION O F ' T H E UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE A N D NOTICE AND ORDER This causeof action was referredto the United States Magistrate Judgepursuant the to p r o v i s i o n s 28 U.S.C.$ 636(b), implemented anorderofthe UnitedStates of as by DistrictCourtfor t h eNorthernDistrictof Texas. The Findings, Conclusions, Recommendation the United and of States Magistrate Judgeareasfollows: I . FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. NnrunB oF THE CesB T h i s is a petitionfor writ of habeas prisoner corpus a state by under28 U.S.C.S 2254. B . PeRrms P e t i t i o n eSamuel r JohnMajor-Davis, TDCJ#1221760, incustodyofthe is Texas Department o f CriminalJustice, Correctional Institutions Division,in Abilene,Texas. RespondenRick Thaler is the Director of the TexasDepartment Criminal Justice, t of Correctional Institutions Division(TDCD. C. Fecruet. AND PRocppunal HrsroRY I n this Major-Davischallenges 2008 disciplinaryproceeding a conducted the at

French Robertson of TDCJ,andtheresultant of 30days M. Unit goodtime. (Disciplinary loss Hrg. R. at l) Major-Davis was chargedin Disciplinary CaseNo. 20080318434 with creatinga

disturbance resultingin a significant disruption institutional of operations breach institutional or of s e c u r i t ya Level2, Code violationof TDCJ'sDisciplinary , 23 RulesandProcedures Offenders. for (Id. at 5) The OffenseDescriptionin the OffenseReportallegedthat on July 18, 2008,MajorDavisDid yell atNurse Karl and RNurse Ford, refusedto take his blood sugarand insulin, threatenedto grievanceif he could not get a hot meal, was told to leave and refused which resulted in a significant disruption of operationsin that such acts causedall o p e r a t i o n sof the front of medicalto stopped[sic] for about20 minutes. (Id.) Additional Information under part (10) of the Offense Report provided: On the date& time listed above,I, Officer Upfold, while working in the infirmary, Offender Major-Davis, Samuel,TDCJ #1221760,did loudly yell at LVN Karl as he threatenedKarl a grievancefor not providing a hot meal when he was questioning the nursesabout the hot meal. Nurse Ford & Nurse Karl both told Offender to frrst check his blood sugar & they would check into it. Offender refused to check his blood sugar unless they were going to provide a hot meal. Nurse Karl told him to shut up, take his blood sugar & insulin and get out. Again Offender continued questioning about the hot meal & refused to check his blood. Nurse Karl told Offender to just leavewithout checkinghis blood sugar& receiving his shot because he was creatinga disturbance.Then the Offender refusedto leavebecause wanted he to check his blood sugar& take his insulin. Again Nurse Karl told Offender, but the Offender still refused. I had the Offender stand up facing the wall, with his hands behind his back. A significant disruption was createdbecauseall operationsat the front of the infirmary ceased back up had to be called. Offender was identified by & h i s TDCJ ID. Operationsstoppedfor 20 minutes. A f t e r receivingnotice of the charges, Major-Davis and his legal representative, so-called or "counsel substitute." attendeda h e a r i n gon July 24,2008, during which he pled not

g u i l t y t o t h e o f f e n s e .(Id. at 1) Atthehearing,thecharging officertestified,Major-Davis'soraland written statementswere allowed, and documentaryevidencewas admitted, including the Service

Investigation Work Sheet,the Offense Report, the Preliminary Investigation Report, and a witness statement. (Id. at 3-1 l) Major-Davis urged that his conduct was due to Nurse Karl's refusal to assurethat he would receive a hot meal after administering his medication. After considering the evidence,the hearing officer found Major-Davis guilty of the violation. (Id. at 1-2) Major-Davis filed Step I and Step2 grievancescontestingthe guilty finding, to no avail. (Disciplinary Grievance R. at t-4) This federal petition for writ of habeascorpus followed. D . ISSUES Major-Davis claims (l) the evidencewas insufficient to support a finding of guilt that he intended to createa disturbance,(2) he lacked the required mensrea to commit the rule violation, ( 3 ) he was deniedthe right to presentmitigating evidenceof his bipolar disorderat the disciplinary hearing, (4) it was a violation of his civil rights to be denied a meal under Texas statutory law, (5) his punishment exceededthe maximum amount permitted under TDCJ regulations, and (6) the disciplinary processviolates the FourteenthAmendment. (Petition at 6-16) E . Rurn5SrereNffiNr Thaler believesMajor-Davis hasfailed to exhausthis stateadministrativeremediesasto one o r more of his claimsasrequiredby 28 U.S.C. $ 2254(b)(1).(Resp'tAnswer at 6) However,a court may deny apetition on the merits notwithstandingapetitioner's failure to exhaust. Id. 52254(bX2).

F . DrscussroN (l) & (2) InsfficientEvidence
A prisoner commits a disciplinary violation if he acts in a manner which results in a significant disruption ofthe institutional operationsorbreach of institutional security. Major-Davis claims TDCJ failed to outline any conduct in the relevant forms which meetsthe definition of the

rule violation or establishes that he intendedto createa disturbance. Federal habeas review of the sufficiency of the evidence is extremely limited. Prison

disciplinary proceedingsare not part of a criminal prosecution,and the full panoply of rights due a d e f e n d a n tin suchproceedings doesnot apply. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1976). In this context, due process requires only o'someevidence" to support the findings made in a d i s c i p l i n a r yhearing. Superintendent, Mass.Con. Inst. v. Hill,472 U.S. 445, 455-57(1985); Wolff, 4 1 8 U.S. at 563-66. Ascertainingwhetherthis standard satisfieddoesnot requireexaminationof is the entire record,independent assessment ofthe credibility ofwitnesses,or weighing ofthe evidence. H i I I , 4 7 2 U.S. at 455. The relevantinquiry is whetherthereis any evidencein the recordthat could support the conclusion reachedby the disciplinary officer. Id. at 455-56. The fundamentalfairness guaranteedby the Due Process Clause does not require courts to set aside decisions of prison a d m i n i s t r a t o r sthat have some basis in fact. Id. at 456. Revocationof good time credits is not to comparableto a criminal conviction, and neither the amount of evidencenecessary support such a conviction nor any other standardgreaterthan some evidenceapplies in this context. Hill,472 falls far below the evidentiary U . S . at 456; Wolff,418 U.S. at 556. The "some evidence"standard test required at criminal trials of proof beyond a reasonabledoubt. I n Major-Davis's case,the charging officer's Offense Report and testimony and Karl's written statementwas some evidenceto support the finding againsthim. SeeHudson v. Johnson, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 534, 536-37(5'hCir. 2001) (providing an officer's report,by itself is sufficientto support a finding of guilt). Evidenceof Major-Davis's actionsof yelling at medical staff, refusingto check his blood sugar, and refusing to leave the medical clinic when ordered was some evidence to establishthat Major-Davis actedin a mannerwhich resultedin a significant disruption of the clinic

for twenty minutes. (3) Right to Present Mitigating Evidence Major-Davis claims he was deniedthe right to presentmitigating evidenceof eventsleading up to the incident and his bipolar disorder at the disciplinary hearing. In a disciplinary proceeding, a prisoner must be afforded the opportunity to presentevidenceand witnessesand the right to crosse x a m i n e his accuserprovided it is relevant and not repetitious.TDCJ's Disciplinary Rules and P r o c e d u r e s OffendersVI(B). for T h e audiorecordingof Major-Davis'sdisciplinaryhearingis largelyunintelligibleand does not aid the court in the determinationof this issue. Nevertheless,Major-Davis's written statement r e g a r d i n gthe offense included his version of events leading up to the incident. (Id. at 10-11) Further, before the hearing, a mental health clinician determinedthat Major-Davis's mental status did not contribute to the alleged offense or his ability to participate in the disciplinary process. ( D i s c i p l i n a r y Hrg. R. at 8) Thus, it was within the hearing offrcer's discretionto disallow the e v i d e n c eas repetitiousor irrelevant. (4) Denial of a Meal M a j o r - D a v i s claims that his right to be fed under $ 501.003of the TexasGovernmentCode was violated and that Nurse Karl and Officer Upfold abusedtheir official capacity and violated his c i v i l rights under $$ 39.01 and39.04 of the Texas Penal Code. Alleged violations of state law p r o v i d e no basis for federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 & n.2 (1991). Furthermore,the appropriatevehicle in which to raise one or more of theseclaims is a civil rights a c t i o npursuant 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. to

(5) Punishment Major-Davis claims the 30-day forfeiture of good time exceedsthe maximum sanction a u t h o r i z e dunderTDCJ regulations.A violation of prisonregulations, without more, doesnot give r i s e to a constitutionalviolation. Hernandezv. Estelle,788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5'h Cir. 1986). Additionally, during the administrative grievanceprocess,Major-Davis was informed at each step that the punishment assessed was within agency guidelines. (Disciplinary Grievance R. at 2, 4) Major-Davis has offered no evidenceto rebut this determination. (6) Notice M a j o r - D a v i s claims TDCJ's disciplinary processviolates his constitutionalright to due processbecause Additional Information containedin the OffenseReport underpart ( 10) was not the included in TDCJ's notice ofthe chargesand because OffenseDescription, which was provided the to him, was not given under oath or attestedto as being true and correct. D u e processin stateprison disciplinary hearingsrequiresthat a prisonerbe provided with him . WoW 418 U.S. at 563-72. The noticeis adequate written noticeofthe charges against advance if it allows the prisoner to understand chargesand to marshalthe facts in his defense.Id. Majorthe Davis statesthat he was given written notice of the offense description as set forth in the offense report, seeinfra. Thus, he was given written notice accusinghim of creatinga disturbanceby yelling at medical staff, refusing to take his blood sugarand insulin, threateningto grievanceif he could not get a hot meal, and refusing to leavethe medical clinic when told to leave. The facts provided in the written notice were sufficient to notifu Major-Davis that he could be subject to and would have to notice under the Due ProcessClause. defend a chargeof creating a disturbance. This was adequate

II. RECOMMENDATION petitionfor writ ofhabeas Major-Davis's corpus should denied. pending motions be All not previously (docketentry ruledupon,includingMajor-Davis's motionfor aSpears hearing #16), are denied. I I I . NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED F I N D I N G S , CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATION A N D CONSEQUENCES FAILURE TO OBJECT OF A copy of this report and recommendation shall be servedon all partiesin the manner providedby law. Any partywho objects anypart of this reportandrecommendation must file to s p e c i f i c w r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n s w i t h i n l 0 d a y s a f t e r b e i n g s e r v e d w iSee28U.S.C,$636(bXl); thacopy. the within which to file specificwritten F e d .R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court is extending deadline and o b j e c t i o n sto the United StatesMagistrateJudge's proposedfindings, conclusions, recommendatiountil November 2009. In orderto be specific,an objectionmustidenti$ the n 20, for and is state basis theobjection, the whichobjection made, specificfindingor recommendationto judge's report and recommendation where the disputed specifu the place in the magistrate or is that by determination found. An objection merelyincorporates reference refersto thebriefing judge is not specific. Failureto file specificwritten objections will bar the beforethe magistrate judgethat partyfrom appealing factual ofthemagistrate findingsandlegalconclusions aggrieved the v. of by areaccepted adopted the district court,exceptupongrounds plain enor. SeeDouglass or Ass Services Automobile 'n, 79 F.3d I4I5 , I4l7 (5thCir. 1996). United I V . ORDER partyis granted 20, until November 2009,to that U n d e r28 U.S.C.$ 636,it is ordered each serve and file written objectionsto the United StatesMagistrateJudge'sproposedfindings,

conclusions,and recommendation. It is further orderedthat if objections are filed and the opposing party choosesto file a response,a responseshall be filed within seven(7) days of the filing date of t h e objections. It is further ordered that the above-styledand numbered action, previously referred to the United StatesMagistrate Judge for findings, conclusions,and recommendation,be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United StatesDistrict Judge.

S I G N E DOctober 2009. 30,

C H A R L E SBLEIL UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE

4-2. /'54/