Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Johnson

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

December 28, 2017

JOHNNY SMITH REG. # 33172-034
v.
CLAYTON JOHNSON

         SECTION P

          JUDGE TRIMBLE

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner Johnny Smith. Smith is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).

         I.

         Background

         Smith brings this petition seeking expungement of a prison disciplinary proceeding arising from an incident report issued on November 14, 2016. Doc. 1; see doc. 1, att. 2, p. 6. According to the incident report, an FCIO officer monitoring recorded inmate calls listened to a conversation Smith placed on November 12, 2016, to a female recipient. Doc. 1, att. 2, p. 6. The incident description continued:

[A]t approximately 1.5 minutes into the call, [Smith] was connected with a third party on speaker phone named “Homer.” Inmate Smith and Homer have general conversation for approximately 8 minutes, then Homer hangs up and inmate Smith resumes conversation with the initial female call recipient completing the 15 minute call. During the conversation with Homer, information provided by the two parties reveals that Homer is an inmate at another institution.

Id. Smith was charged with violating Prohibited Act Code 297, “Use of telephone for abuses other than criminal activity which circumvent monitoring; third party/conference calling, ” and the Unit Disciplinary Committee referred the charge to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) for a hearing. Id. The DHO found that Smith committed the charged offense. See Id. at 1. Smith states that as a result, he was sentenced to the loss of twenty-seven days of good time credits. Doc. 1, p. 1. He now brings the instant habeas petition, alleging that the DHO proceedings did not comply with the due process standards set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974). Docs. 1, 4. Accordingly, he seeks restoration of his good time credits, expungement of the charge, “and, if possible, a sincere letter of apology” from certain individuals. Doc. 7; doc. 4, p. 8.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions

         A district court may apply any or all of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at Rule 4, advisory committee note (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly, we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the petition must be dismissed.

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.