JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge.
Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner, Jose Veliz ("petitioner" or "Veliz"), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Schuylkill ("FCI-Schuylkill"), Minersville, Pennsylvania. He contends that his due process rights were violated during the course of disciplinary proceedings. The petition is ripe for disposition and, for the reasons that follow, will be denied.
On July 3, 2013, while incarcerated at FCI-Schuylkill, petitioner was made aware, via delivery of Incident Report 246369, that he was being charged with Prohibited Act Code 115, Destroying and/or Disposing of any Item During a Search. (Doc. 13-1, p. 16). The report incident described the incident as follows:
(
During the July 8, 2013 Unit Discipline Committee ("UDC") review, he stated "That's oatmeal, not intoxicants." (
The hearing commenced on July 22, 2013. (
The DHO found based on the evidence that petitioner committed the Prohibited Act of Code 199, Conduct Which Disrupts — most like — Destroying and/or Dispensing of any item during a Search. (
Upon questioning by the DHO, Inmate Veliz, Registration #38186-177 denied the charge. He elaborated upon his plea by stating, he was washing out his bowls and it was oatmeal he flushed down the toilet. After the consideration of evidence documented above, the DHO has drawn the conclusion that the greater weight of the evidence/some facts, listed in the paragraphs above, support(s) the finding, inmate Veliz, Register No. 38186-77 committed the prohibited act(s) fo Conduct Which Disrupts — Most Like — Destroying and/or Disposing of any item during a Search, Code(s) 199 ML 115 on 07-02-2013, at or about 2:40 PM in Unit 2A cell B02-232 at FCI Schuylkill, PA.
(
In sanctioning him with a disallowance of 21 days of good conduct time, 30 days disciplinary segregation, and a monetary fine, the DHO reasoned as follows: "Inmate Veliz's destroying/disposing of any item prior to a search threatened the orderly running of the institution. His intentional destroying of evidence prior to search indicates a lack of respect for the searching official as well as threatens the safety of both staff and inmates. Accordingly, Disciplinary Segregation and the Disallowance of Good Conduct Time is sanctioned to Punish Veliz for his misconduct while a Monetary Fine is sanctioned in an effort to deter him from future misconduct." (
After exhausting all available administrative processes, petitioner filed the instant petition arguing that his due process rights were violated because the DHO did not allow him to present documentary evidence, did not allow him to call witnesses, denied him a staff representative, denied him the opportunity to be heard. (Doc. 1, pp 6-11). He also contends that he was denied the right to appeal the DHO's decision. (
Petitioner'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 because it directly impacts the duration of petitioner's confinement. 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." U.S. Const. amend. V. Federal inmates possess a liberty interest in good conduct time.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons' ("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 attempt to violate, institutional rules. The first step requires filing an incident report and conducting an investigation pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.5. Staff is required to conduct the investigation promptly absent intervening circumstances beyond the control of the investigator. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b).
Following the investigation, the matter is referred to the UDC for a hearing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. If the UDC finds that a prisoner has committed a prohibited act, it may impose minor sanctions. (
Greatest category offenses carry a possible sanction of, inter alia, loss of good conduct time credits. 28 C.F.R. § 541.3. When a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss of good conduct time credits, due process requires that the inmate receive (1) written notice of the claimed violation at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the hearing, (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his or her defense when doing so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals, and (3) a written statement by the factfinder as to evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action.
The record clearly demonstrates that Veliz's disciplinary hearing complied with the
To the extent that he alleges that he was denied the right to appeal the DHO decision, the record indicates otherwise. Veliz filed a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal on August 1, 2013. (Doc. 13-1, p. 25). The appeal was wholly considered and denied on September 4, 2013. (
Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied. An appropriate Order follows.