upholding denial of habeas relief where petitioner had not timely received copy of DHO report because “the delay had no prejudicial effect on Cook’s administrative appeal and thus does not provide a basis for habeas relief”
How later courts described this case
- upholding denial of habeas relief where petitioner had not timely received copy of DHO report because “the delay had no prejudicial effect on Cook’s administrative appeal and thus does not provide a basis for habeas relief”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE WASHINGTON CRANE V, No. 4:20-CV-00637
Petitioner. (Judge Brann)
v.
D.K. WHITE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JULY 31, 2020
Petitioner George Washington Crane V (“Crane”), a federal inmate in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), filed the instant petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 17, 2020, alleging that his
due process rights were violated in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings
held at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton, New Jersey.1
The petition is ripe for disposition and, for the reasons that follow, will be
denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2018, Crane received Incident Report 3177457 charging him
with Prohibited Act Code 201, Fighting with Another Person. The reporting officer
described the incident as follows:
On October 4, 2018, at approximately 5:15 pm, I, Officer C. LaRoche,
witnessed two inmates involved in a fight inside camp housing. I was
at the Officer’s station when I heard what sounded like an altercation
happening near the phone room. I went around the Officer’s station
and witnessed two inmates, Crane, George (82203-083) and Donnelly,
Michael (74003-066), actively engaged in a fight outside the phone
room. Both inmates were on the ground, holding onto each other’s
torsos. I witnessed Donnelly throwing punches towards Crane while
they were still holding onto each other. I announced “fight in the camp”
over the radio and then immediately issued a direct order for the
inmates to stop fighting. They complied immediately. I kept both
inmates separated until more staff arrived. Both inmates were
handcuffed and escorted to the LT’s office without further incident.2
Crane received the incident report the following day. The investigator advised him
of his rights and during the course of the investigation, Crane admitted to the
investigator that he was fighting. The investigator referred the matter to the Unit
Discipline Committee (“UDC”) for further action.3
During his UDC hearing, which took place the following day, he stated that
the incident report was true as written.4 The UDC referred the matter to a
disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) stating that the act warranted sanctions not
available to the UDC.5 He received the Notice of Discipline Hearing on October 9,
2018.6
2 Doc. 10-1, p. 23.
3 Id. at 24.
4 Id. at 23.
5 Id.
The disciplinary hearing convened on December 6, 2018.7 The DHO verbally
advised Crane of his rights, noted that he received advanced written notice of the
charge on October 5, 2019, recorded that he waived his right to witnesses and a staff
representative, and documented that Crane indicated that he understood his rights.8
Crane admitted being in a hostile physical altercation but denied any wrong
doing. He specifically stated “[m]ail was getting handed out and I was getting mail
for other inmates. Donnelly told the CO I took a newspaper that didn’t belong to me
and said taking somebody else’s mail is a Federal Offense. I walked back to my
bunk and Donnelly walked past me and made a face. I told him he was pathetic. He
attacked me. He pulled my ponytail and we went to the ground. He started hitting
me and I protected my face. It wasn’t a fight.”9 In finding that Crane committed the
prohibited act as charged, the DHO relied on the eyewitness account of the reporting
staff member, and his verbal altercation with the other inmate that escalated into a
physical altercation.10 The DHO concluded the following:
You admitted having a verbal altercation with inmate Donnelly that
turned physical, but denied being in a fight. You claimed you were
attacked. The DHO took into consideration your statement and
determined your defense was flawed. The prohibited act of fighting is
committed when an inmate engages in a hostile, verbal, or physical
altercation with another person. By your own admission you had words
with inmate Donnelly that escalated into a physical altercation. You
were wrong for taking another inmate’s mail and your comments
helped escalate the situation. Although, [sic] inmate Donnelly may
7 Id. at 21.
8 Id.
9 Id.
have initiated the physical altercation, you chose to become an active
participant in the incident and you are responsible for your own actions.
Based on the eyewitness account of the reporting officer and your
partial admission, the DHO finds the greater weight of the evidence
indicates you did commit the prohibited act of Fighting with Another
Person, Code 201.11
The DHO sanctioned Crane with fifteen days disciplinary segregation, which was
suspended pending fifteen days of clear conduct, and disallowed twenty-seven days
of good conduct time.12
Crane was transferred from FCI-Fairton to the LSCI Allenwood on January
14, 2019.13 He alerted his unit manager at Allenwood of the non-receipt of the
DHO’s report.14 After failed attempts to obtain the report through normal channels,
on May 6, 2019, the unit manager notified the Administrative Remedy Coordinator
for the Northeast Regional Office that Crane had been unable to obtain the DHO
report through appropriate channels.15 On December 6, 2019, Crane received the
DHO report.16 On December 13, 2019, he appealed the DHO’s findings.17 The
Central Office denied the appeal finding the determination of the DHO to be
reasonable and supported by the evidence and the sanctions imposed to be
commensurate with the severity level of the offense.18 The Central Office further
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Doc. 7-3.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Doc. 7-4, p. 3.
17 Doc. 7-1
concluded that there were no due process violations during the course of the
disciplinary hearing process and that the delay of providing him with a copy of the
DHO’s report did not adversely affect him as he was able to avail himself of the
administrative appeal procedure.19
Presently, Crane is seeking reinstatement of twenty-seven days of good
conduct time.20
II. ANALYSIS
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.”21 Federal inmates possess a liberty interest in good
conduct time because it directly impacts the duration of confinement 22 Therefore,
Crane’s claim, that his due process rights were violated in the context of the
disciplinary hearing process and that these violations resulted in a loss of good
conduct time, is properly the subject of this habeas petition.23
The BOP disciplinary process is fully outlined in Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 28, Sections 541 through 541.8 (2011). These regulations dictate
the manner in which disciplinary action may be taken should a prisoner violate, or
19 Id.
20 Id.at 8.
21 U.S. CONST. amend. V.
22 See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-57 (1974); Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1399
(3d Cir. 1991).
attempt to violate, institutional rules. The process is initiated with filing an incident
report and conducting an investigation.24 Staff is required to conduct the
investigation promptly absent intervening circumstances beyond the control of the
investigator.25 The inmate is entitled to receive initial notice of the incident, which
is “ordinarily” provided within twenty-four hours of staff becoming aware of
the inmate’s involvement, 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a), and advance written notice of the
charges at least twenty-four hours prior to commencement of the DHO hearing,”26
Following the investigation, the matter is referred to the UDC for an initial
hearing.27 If the UDC finds that a prisoner has committed a prohibited act, it may
impose minor sanctions.28 If the alleged violation is serious and warrants
consideration for more than minor sanctions, or involves a prohibited act listed in
the greatest or high category offenses, the UDC refers the matter to a DHO for a
hearing.29 Offenses such as Fighting with Another Person in the High Severity
category carry a possible sanction of, inter alia, loss of good conduct time credits.30
In the event that a matter is referred for a hearing, the Warden is required to give the
inmate advance written notice of the charges no less than twenty-four hours before
the DHO hearing and offer the inmate a full-time staff member to represent him at
24 28 C.F.R. § 541.5.
25 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b).
26 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(c).
27 28 C.F.R. § 541.7.
28 Id.
29 Id.
the DHO hearing.31
At the DHO hearing, the inmate is “entitled to make a statement and present
documentary evidence” and has the right to submit names of requested witnesses
and have them called to testify and to present documents.32 The DHO shall “call
witnesses who have information directly relevant to the charge[s] and who are
reasonably available,” and need not call repetitive or adverse witnesses.33 The
inmate has the right to be present throughout the hearing except during “DHO
deliberations or when [his] presence would jeopardize institution security, at the
DHO’s discretion.”34 The DHO must “consider all evidence presented during the
hearing.”35 The decision will be based on at least some facts and, if there is
conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.”36 The DHO must
prepare a record of the proceedings sufficient to document the advisement of inmate
rights, the findings and decisions, the specific evidence relied on, and the reasons
for the sanctions imposed. A copy must be delivered to the inmate.37
The BOP’s disciplinary procedures are in accord with due process
requirements. Specifically, when a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss
of good conduct time credits, due process requires that the prisoner receive certain
31 Id. at § 541.8 (c) and (d).
32 Id. at § 541.8(f).
33 Id. at § 541.8(f)(2) and (3).
34 Id. at § 541.8(e).
35 Id. at § 541.8(f).
36 Id.
due process protections: 1) written notice of the claimed violation at least twenty-
four (24) hours in advance of the hearing; 2) the opportunity to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence when consistent with institutional and correctional
goals; 3) assistance in presenting a defense if the inmate is illiterate; 4) an impartial
tribunal; and 5) a written statement by the factfinder as to evidence relied on and
reasons for the disciplinary action.38
Importantly, the decision of the DHO will be upheld if there is “some
evidence” to support the decision.39 The determination of whether the 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 there is any evidence in the record that could support the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”40 Judicial review of a prison
disciplinary decision is limited to ensuring that the prisoner was afforded certain
procedures, the action against him was not arbitrary, and that the ultimate decision
has some evidentiary support.41
Crane received adequate and timely written notice before both the UDC and
DHO proceedings. He was notified of his right to remain silent before both
proceedings. He was also afforded the opportunity to call witnesses and present
38 See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564.
39 Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985); see also Young, 926 at 1402-03 (applying
Hill standard to federal prisoner due process challenge to prison disciplinary proceedings).
40 Id. at 455.
documentary evidence. His hearing was held before an impartial DHO, and he was
provided with a written copy of the DHO’s decision, which recited the evidence
relied upon and the rationale behind the disciplinary sanctions.
Crane specifically takes issue with the delay in the delivery of the DHO’s
report.42 An inmate is entitled to a “written statement by the factfinder of the
evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.”43 A failure to timely
provide a copy of the DHO’s report may constitute a violation of a Petitioner’s due
process rights.44 To establish such a violation, however, the inmate must show that
he was prejudiced by the prison’s failure to timely provide the DHO’s report, such
as an inability to appeal the decision.45 It is clear that Crane pursued an appeal of
the DHO’s decision after receipt of the report and that the BOP’s Central Office
adjudicated the appeal.46 Because he fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by
the BOP’s failure to timely provide the DHO report, he is not entitled to relief on
this claim.47
Crane also asserts that “[t]he incident report lacks merit as [he] did not meet
the criteria for sanction.”48 In arriving at a finding of guilt, the DHO specifically
42 Doc. 1, p. 6.
43 Hill, 472 U.S. at 454 (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67).
44 Griffin v. Ebbert, 640 F. App'x 181, 184 (3d Cir. 2016).
45 Id. (citing Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir. 2003)).
46 Doc. 1, pp. 11, 12.
47 See Griffin, 640 F. App'x at 184; see also Cook v. Warden, Fort Dix Corr. Inst., 241 F. App'x
828, 829 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding denial of habeas relief where petitioner had not timely
received copy of DHO report because “the delay had no prejudicial effect on Cook’s
administrative appeal and thus does not provide a basis for habeas relief”).
relied on the eyewitness account of the staff member who authored the incident
report as well as Crane’s partial admission to engaging in a verbal altercation with
inmate Donnelly. The DHO pointed out that “[t]he prohibited act of fighting is
committed when an inmate engages in a hostile, verbal, or physical altercation with
another person” and emphasized that, by his own admission, Crane had words with
inmate Donnelly which escalated into a physical altercation.49 It is clear that the
finding of guilt for the Prohibited Act Code 201 offense, Fighting with Another
Person, has some evidentiary support in the record before the DHO.
Crane also seems to be challenging the severity of sanctions imposed upon
him. Sanctions permitted upon a finding of guilt of a “High Severity Level
Prohibited Acts” offense, which includes Prohibited Act Code 201, Fighting with
Another Person, include, inter alia, forfeit and/or withhold earned statutory good
conduct time up to 50% or up to sixty days, whichever is less, disallowance of
between 25% and 50% (14-27) of good conduct time credit available for a year, up
to 6 months of disciplinary segregation, loss of privileges and monetary fine.50 The
sanctions imposed on Crane, specifically, the loss of twenty-seven days of good
conduct time, and fifteen days disciplinary segregation (suspended), were within the
limits prescribed in this regulation.
49 Doc. 10-1, p. 22.
Further, “[t]he Eighth Amendment is violated only when a punishment is
grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense.51 Therefore, only sanctions
that “impose [ ] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life,” may be deemed excessive.52 The penalties
imposed do not work an “atypical and significant hardship” on Crane and do not
serve to extend his confinement beyond the expected parameters of his sentence.53
Consequently, he is not entitled to relief.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
51 See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271–74 (1980).” Levi v. Holt, 192 F. App’x 158, 162
(3d Cir. 2006).
52 Moles v. Holt, 221 F. App’x 92, 95 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995).