Machuca v. Chandler
Filing
8
Opinion and Order. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is also DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 8/19/2016) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CARLOS MACHUCA,
Petitioner,
V.
RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden,
FCI-Fort Worth,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-443-O
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed
by Petitioner, Carlos Machuca, a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution
(FCI-Fort Worth) in Fort Worth, Texas, against Rodney W. Chandler, Warden of FCI-Fort Worth,
Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded
that the petition should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a total term of 135 months’ imprisonment for his 2008 convictions in
the Western district of Texas for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, aiding and abetting bank fraud,
money laundering, and aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. J., United States v. Machuca,
Criminal Action No. 7:08-cr-055-RAJ, ECF No. 85. By way of this petition, Petitioner challenges
a disciplinary proceeding conducted at FCI-Big Spring. Respondent provides the following factual
summary of the disciplinary proceedings:
On June 13, 2013, Machuca received an incident report at FCI Big Spring for
a violation of Code 305, Possession of Anything Unauthorized, after admitting to
possessing a pair of unauthorized Beats by Dre earbuds he reported finding in a
recycling bin. Later that same day an iPhone 4 cell phone was found near the Health
Services Unit, and a search of the phone’s content revealed it had been used by
Machuca and perhaps other inmates. The cell phone was sent for forensic analysis to
verify who had used it. The report of the forensic analysis was not received for
several months. The report stated that the phone contained three numbers on
Machuca’s approved TRUFONE phone list and also various pictures linked to him,
including one he had taken of himself in the Camp Housing Unit bathroom.
When Machuca was interviewed about the phone, he stated that he had
purchased the phone for $400 and “his girl” had activated it. On December 10, 2013,
the investigation was completed and Incident Report Number 2525081 was issued
to Machuca for violation of Code 108, Possession of a Hazardous Tool (Cell Phone).
Machuca was advised of his right to remain silent and stated, “The report is
true; the only difference is my girl gave me the phone, I didn’t buy it.” On December
11, 2013, Machuca appeared before the UDC and stated, “I never bought the phone;
my girl gave it to me.” The UDC referred Incident Report 2525081 to the Discipline
Hearing Officer (DHO) for further review based on the seriousness of the prohibited
act charged. Machuca was advised of his rights at the upcoming DHO hearing.
On January 14, 2014, the DHO hearing was held via video conference.
Machuca opted to proceed without a staff representative after initially requesting one
and did not request any witnesses. He stated that he was given the phone by his
girlfriend but was challenging the incident report because he was not served a copy
of it within 24 hours after staff became aware of the incident.
The DHO found sufficient evidence that the act was committed as charged.
The DHO considered and relied upon: the statement of the staff member who
completed the investigation on December 10, 2013; the preliminary search of the
phone that revealed Machuca had used the phone; the forensic report that verified the
preliminary search findings and confirmed that the cell phone had been used to
contact three numbers listed only on Machuca’s TRUFONE approved telephone list
and that it contained photos of Machuca; Machuca’s admission that he possessed the
cell phone but was challenging the incident report because he was not issued the
incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of the incident; and the staff
memoranda regarding when he was served the incident report. The DHO explained
to Machuca that when an investigation is conducted the date and time staff become
“aware” of the incident is the date and time the investigation is completed. Therefore,
the DHO concluded that Machuca had received a copy of the incident Report 4 hours
and 55 minutes after staff became aware of the incident.
The sanctions issued by the DHO on January 23, 2014, were the disallowance
of 41 days of good conduct time, 60 days of disciplinary segregation suspended for
180 days, 365 days loss of telephone and email privileges. On January 31, 2014,
Machuca received a copy of the DHO report. Machuca exhausted the BOP
administrative remedy process with respect to this Incident Report.
2
Resp’t’s Resp. 204, ECF No. 6 (record citations omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s only complaint is that he did not receive a copy of the incident report within 24
hours after prison staff became aware of the incident as required by the Bureau’s internal policies.
Pet. 2-3, ECF No. 2. In the context of a prison disciplinary proceeding resulting in the loss of good
time credits, constitutional due process requires that a prisoner at a minimum receive (1) written
notice of the charges against him at least twenty-four hours prior to the disciplinary hearing, (2) an
opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and (3) a written
statement from the factfinder that includes the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary
action taken. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974). In addition, there must be “some
evidence” in the record that supports the findings made at the hearing. Superintendent, Mass. Corr.
Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985); Richards v. Dretke, 394 F.3d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner’s complaint that he did not receive notice within 24 hours of the staff becoming
aware of the violation is not constitutionally guaranteed. Notice is only required at least 24 hours
before the disciplinary hearing. Moreover, the regulation does not make it mandatory that a prisoner
receive the report within 24 hours. Rather, as quoted by Petitioner, it states that “you will ordinarily
receive the incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of your involvement in the
incident.” Pet. 5, ECF No. 1. The failure to receive notice within 24 hours does not establish a
constitutional violation, as there is no provision stating that the incident report must be provided
within the twenty-four hour time frame. See Taylor v. Carvajal, No. 1:07-CV-982, 2011 WL
7143166, at *2 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 18, 2011). Furthermore, “a prison official’s failure to follow the
prison’s own policies . . . does not constitute a violation of due process, if constitutional minima are
3
nevertheless met.” Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir.1996).
The requirements of due process were satisfied in this case. The incident occurred on June
13, 2013. On December 10, 2013, after conclusion of the investigation, prison officials notified
petitioner of the disciplinary charges by delivering a copy of the incident report to him. Resp’t’s App.
14, ECF No. 7. On December 11, 2013, prison officials notified Petitioner that a hearing would be
held on the next available docket, and he was advised of his rights at the hearing in writing. Id. at
17-18. The disciplinary hearing was held on January 14, 2014. Id. at 14. Petitioner therefore received
at least 24 hours advance notice of the charges. At the hearing, Petitioner was offered but declined
a staff representative and was given an opportunity to make a statement, present evidence, and call
witnesses on his behalf. Id. at 14-15. On January 23, 2014, Petitioner was provided a copy of the
DHO’s decision, reasons for the action taken, and the evidence relied upon and he was notified of
his right to appeal. Id. at 14-16.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner’s petition is DENIED. A certificate of
appealability is also DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 19th day of August, 2016.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?