ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge.
Petitioner, Lincoln Son, is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey. He is proceeding prose with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner claims that there was no evidence to support a prison disciplinary finding against him that resulted in his losing forty-one days of good conduct time. For the following reasons, the habeas petition will be denied.
According to a prison discipline incident report, on August 26, 2013, an officer conducting a shakedown of cell 128 in Unit A-B found a false bottom in the ladder leading to the upper bunk. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at I.) The ladder was in a common area of the cell. (Id.) The ladder bottom contained a piece of metal approximately nine inches long and sharpened to a point. (Id.) The officer noted that Petitioner had been moved on August 23, 2013, to another cell but that Petitioner claimed that he did not know about the move and was inadvertently still occupying the living space of cell 128.
The incident report was referred to the Discipline Hearing Officer ("DHO"). Petitioner was advised of his rights in preparation for the DHO hearing. (Dkt. No. 4-3 at 16.) Petitioner requested a staff representative and declined the right to call witnesses. (Id. at 18.) On September 3, 2013, a DHO hearing was held. In addition to the incident report, the DHO considered a photograph of the homemade weapon. (Id. at 22.)
The DHO found that petitioner had violated Code 104, possession of a weapon. In his report, the DHO stated:
(Dkt. No. 4-3 at 23.) Petitioner received a sanction of the disallowance of forty-one days good conduct time among other sanctions.
Petitioner appealed the DHO's decision to the Regional Director. In his appeal, Petitioner asserted that another inmate claimed ownership of the weapon. The Regional Director denied the appeal, addressing Petitioner's argument as follows:
(Dkt. No. 4-3 at 8.) The BOP's Central Office then denied petitioner's appeal from the Regional Director's decision. (See id. at 11.)
Petitioner subsequently filed this federal habeas petition.
Respondent filed an answer in opposition to the habeas petition. Though Petitioner requested and was granted two extensions of time in which to file a reply to Respondent's answer (Dkt. Nos. 6, 8), Petitioner did not file a reply.
Petitioner argues that there was insufficient evidence before the OHO to find him guilty of the disciplinary charge. As noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 2013) (footnote omitted). The "some evidence" "standard is minimal and does not require examination of the entire record, an independent assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, or a weighing of the evidence." Lang v. Sauers, 529 F. App'x 121, 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Thompson v. Owens, 889 F.2d 500, 502 (3d Cir. 1989)). Instead, "the relevant inquiry asks whether `there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.'" Id. (quoting Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56).
Petitioner's contention that there was "absolutely no evidence" that he possessed the weapon lacks merit. Courts consistently have upheld the rule that inmates can be held to be in "constructive possession" of contraband found in their cells. See Denny, 708 F.3d at 145; see also Santiago v. Nash 224 Fed. Appx. 175, 177 (3d Cir. 2007) ("some evidence" rule may be satisfied by application of the constructive possession doctrine where only a small number of inmates are potentially guilty of the offense charged); Reynolds v. Williamson, 197 Fed.Appx. 196, 199 (3d Cir.2006) (applying doctrine of constructive possession where only two people were assigned to cell in which sharpened rod was found inside sink drain); Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir.1992) (applying doctrine of constructive possession where weapons found in air vent of cell shared by four inmates). As the Third Circuit has explained,
Denny, 708 F.3d at 146.
Here, the DHO's deducting forty-one days of good conduct time did not violate Petitioner's due process rights because there was "some evidence" to support the disciplinary officer's decision. The cell in which the weapon was found was occupied by three inmates, including Petitioner, and was found in a common area of the cell equally accessible by all. Though Petitioner contends that he was not assigned to the cell in question, he also acknowledges that he continued to reside in and occupy the cell because he was unaware that he had been assigned to another cell. As for Petitioner's argument that another inmate claimed possession of the item, that is of no moment where Petitioner had an affirmative responsibility to keep his cell free from contraband — potentially, including "policing the illicit activities of [his] cellmates." See Deny, 708 F.3d at 147; see also, Okocci v. Klein, 270 F.Supp.2d 603, 613 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (observing that constructive possession doctrine has been extended to situations where other inmates claimed responsibility for contraband), aff'd sub nom. Remoi v. Klein, 100 F. App'x 127 (3d Cir. 2004). As discussed above, the "some evidence" standard asks whether there is any evidence in the record that supports the disciplinary decision without an independent weighing of that evidence. Applying the standards regarding constructive possession discussed above, and considering the application of BOP Program Statement 5270.09, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the DHO's conclusion regarding Petitioner's possession of the weapon. Accordingly, the removal of Petitioner's good time credit did not violate his due process rights.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. An appropriate order will be entered.