United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
DAVID CRUZ ESPINOZA REG. # 29850-308
KATHLEEN KAY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner David
Cruz Espinoza. Espinoza is an inmate in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).
brings this petition seeking expungement of a prison
disciplinary proceeding and restoration of good time credits.
Doc. 1. He alleges that BOP staff have violated his right to
due process by disregarding deadlines and failing to provide
records and observe time limitations. Id. at 7.
Specifically, he appears to complain about the rejections of
his regional and central office appeals as untimely.
Id. at 7-8. In relief, he requests that the court
“hold the [BOP] to the time limitations set [forth] in
the minimal protections that we as inmates have under
administrative law.” Id. at 8. He also asks
that the disciplinary sanctions be revoked and his good time
credits restored. Id. Finally, he requests that the
court order an investigation into his protective custody
Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions
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.
§ 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner
“attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out
or the prison authorities' determination of its
duration.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451
(5th Cir. 2000). In order to prevail, a § 2241
petitioner must show that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
habeas challenge to a disciplinary proceeding, an inmate must
show that the punishment intrudes on a liberty interest
protected by the Constitution or some other law. Orellana
v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing
Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995)). It is
assumed that federal prisoners have a liberty interest in
their accumulated good-time credit. See, e.g.,
Henson v. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th
Cir. 2000); Watkins v. Lnu, 547 Fed. App'x 409,
410 (5th Cir. 2013). Here Espinoza alleges that he has lost
good-time credits as a result of the challenged disciplinary
proceedings, and so the Supreme Court's analysis in
Wolff v. McDonnell, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974), and
Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v.
Hill, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985), governs our review.
order for a prison disciplinary proceeding to comport with
the requirements of due process, the following minimal
procedural safeguards must be afforded: (1) adequate notice
of the alleged violation; (2) an opportunity to present
evidence; (3) written findings in support of the ruling; and
(4) the requirement that on review, ...