FIELDS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHNSTOWN DIVISION

HAROLD FIELDS, )

) Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00074

)

Petitioner, ) United States Magistrate Judge

) Christopher B. Brown

vs. )

)

MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, WARDEN; )

)

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS, ECF NO. 61

Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge

Petitioner, Harold Fields, is a federal prisoner incarcerated at FCI-Loretto.

He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging

the findings from a disciplinary hearing. ECF No. 1. Respondent, Michael

Underwood, Warden, has moved to dismiss the petition arguing Fields has failed to

raise a cognizable claim. ECF No. 6. Fields has not responded to the motion and

the time for him to do so has passed. ECF No. 7. The motion is ripe for disposition.

I. Background

Fields is serving a sentence of 35 years’ incarceration imposed on March 24,

2000, by the Superior Court for the District of Columbia in Criminal Case Number

3900-99. ECF No. 6-2 at 3. He seeks the restoration of the loss of 41 good conduct

days, 4 months of commissary privileges, and 20 disciplinary segregation days as a

1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily

consented to have a U.S. Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a

final judgment. See ECF Nos. 4 and 10.

result of a determination by a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that Fields was

in possession of a dangerous weapon discovered in his shared cell. ECF No. 1 at 10.

He also seeks the expungement of Incident Report No. 4010112. Id.

On October 13, 2024, a staff member at FCI Loretto conducted a random

search of a cell that Fields shared with two other prisoners and found a “piece of

metal approximately 7 inches in length sharpened to a point with a cloth handle

attached.” ECF No. 1-1 at 6. Fields was charged with possessing a dangerous

weapon. Id. at 5. A disciplinary hearing before a DHO was held on October 17,

2024. Id.

The DHO issued a written report after the hearing. Id. at 5-9. The DHO

found, based on the “greater weight of the evidence,” that Fields committed the

prohibited act of possessing a dangerous weapon. Id. at 6. In making that

determination, the DHO considered Fields’s statement, the incident report, and a

photograph of the weapon. ECF No. 1-1 at 6, 9. The DHO sanctioned Fields to

disciplinary segregation for 20 days and the loss of 4 months of commissary

privileges. ECF No. 1-1 at 6.2

Fields raises four grounds for habeas relief:

GROUND ONE: “Common Area” In the body of the

incident report it was stated that Officer G. Himes found

contraband in a common area while conducting a random

cell search of room SA04. ECF No. 1 at 4;

2 Fields also contends he was sanctioned the loss of 41 good conduct days. But the record does

not reflect such a sanction was imposed. See ECF No. 1-1 at 6. In fact, the record reflects because

Fields was sentenced under the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Amendment Act, he does not earn

good conduct time. See ECF No. 6-1 at 2.

GROUND TWO: Assignment of Housing – It was stated

in the response of the Administrative Remedy No.

1218149-A1 that according to Program Statement 5270.09

CN-1 Inmate Discipline Program Statement stipulates

that inmates are to keep their assigned living quarters

free of contraband. Id. at 5;

GROUND THREE: Unsecured Housing Unit – Inmate

Fields lives on a unit that houses 54 other inmates, with

other inmates who pass through the unit each day. There

are no locked doors. During a institutional lockdown all

inmates are just confined to the South 1 housing unit, the

bathrooms are open, the water fountain is open, the ice

machine is open, the computers are open, the T.V. room is

open as well as other things such as the ironing board and

common area community table. Id. at 6; and

GROUND FOUR: Inmate Fields Prison History and

Characteristics – Inmate Fields has been incarcerated for

nearly 26 years now, and guess what? “WITHOUT a

single incident report” Inmate Fields did not start out in a

lower custody facility, he started out in the united states

penitentiary, where one would more than likely have the

need to carry some sort of weapon. Mr. Fields history and

characteristics do not call for the greater weight of the

evidence to go against him in this case. Id. at 7.

Respondent filed the pending motion to dismiss arguing Fields has failed to

raise claims that are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and the Court must,

therefore, dismiss the petition. ECF No. 6. Fields did not respond to the motion,

although he was ordered to do so, and the time to do so has passed. ECF No. 7.

II. Discussion

Protected liberty interests may arise either from the Due Process Clause

itself or from statutory law. Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2002). “Prison

disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply

of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). To invoke the Due Process Clause, Fields must first

identify a liberty interest that has been violated. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209,

221 (2005). Prisoners are entitled to due-process protection only when the

disciplinary action results in the loss of good conduct time or when a penalty

“imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).

The Court finds Fields has failed to make a cognizable due process claim.

Although he asserts a loss of good conduct time credits, the record belies this

assertion. ECF No. 1-1 at 6. The DHO report confirms the only sanctions imposed

were a temporary loss of commissary privileges and temporary placement in

disciplinary segregation, neither of which implicate a protected liberty interest as

they did not result in any atypical or significant hardships in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life. See ECF No. 1-1 at 6; ECF No. 6-3 at 2. See, e.g.,

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of habeas

petition where disciplinary sanctions did not result in the loss of good conduct time);

Lewis v. Canaan, 664 F. App’x 153, 155 n.1 (3d Cir. 2016) (the loss of commissary

privileges for a short period of time does not implicate a protected liberty interest);

Robinson v. Norwood, 535 F. App’x 81, 83 (3d Cir. 2013) (placement in

administrative segregation for days or months at a time does not implicate a

protected liberty interest). As a result, the disciplinary sanctions Fields received do

not implicate any liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause.

Fields asserts this Court should grant his habeas petition, expunge the

incident report, and restore all privileges lost in connection with the misconduct.

ECF No. 1 at 9. However, as explained above, Fields was not sanctioned with loss

of good conduct time, but rather was sanctioned with temporary loss of commissary

privileges and temporary placement in disciplinary segregation. See ECF No. 1-1 at

6; No. ECF No. 6-3 at 2. Thus, no liberty interest was implicated and there is no

basis for Fields to seek habeas relief. As a result, the motion to dismiss will be

granted and the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. §

2253 (as amended), codified 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) (en banc), abrogated on other

grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted and the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied. A separate Order follows.

Dated: November 18, 2025. BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown

Christopher B. Brown

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: HAROLD FIELDS

12953-007

LORETTO

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. BOX 1000

CRESSON, PA 16630

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

Michael Leo Ivory

United States Attorney's Office

(via ECF electronic notification)