United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
TRAMAINE M. BEADLES, Petitioner
CALVIN JOHNSON, Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C.
§ 2241) filed by pro se Petitioner Tramaine Beadles
(“Beadles”) (#15213-031). Beadles is an inmate in
the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Beadles challenges a
Beadles cannot show that he was denied due process, and there
is some evidence of his guilt, the petition should be
to an incident report, staff at the Federal Correctional
Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma, “confiscated from
inmate Beadles” a strip of paper that appeared to be
cut from a birthday card. (Doc. 1-2, p. 8). Half of the strip
was tested “utilizing the NIK Test Kit A which resulted
in light orange color turning brown.” (Doc. 1-2, p. 8).
NIK Test Kit U was then used to test the other half of the
strip of paper, “which resulted in a purple color
yielding a positive result for Amphetamine.” The
confiscated item was destroyed during testing. (Doc. 1-2, p.
disciplinary hearing was conducted, at which Beadles waived
his right to a staff representative and waived his right to
call witnesses. (Doc. 1-2, p. 10). Beadles gave the following
statement at the hearing: “I just made a
mistake.” (Doc. 1-2, p. 11). Beadles presented no
exculpatory evidence. (Doc. 1-2, p. 11). Beadles was
convicted and sanctioned to the loss of 40 days good conduct
time, 30 days disciplinary segregation, and the loss of
commissary and visiting privileges for six months. (Doc. 1-2,
p. 11). Beadles appealed the conviction, but the appeal was
denied. (Doc. 1-2, p. 2).
petition, Beadles challenges the evidence used to convict
him. Specifically, Beadles alleges that the substance was
found in an outside recreation restroom; he was never shown
the substance or the test results; the test was conducted out
of Beadles's presence; staff neglected to use kit
identification numbers; and no third-party or confirmation
testing was conducted. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Law and Analysis
federal prisoner has a liberty interest in his accumulated
good time credits. Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,
213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, the
“revocation of such credit must comply with minimal
procedural requirements.” Id. However,
“[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a
criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due [to]
a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.”
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). The
due process that an inmate must receive in a disciplinary
hearing is: (1) written notice of the charges against him at
least 24 hours before the hearing; (2) a written statement of
the fact-finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons
for the disciplinary action taken; (3) the opportunity to
call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his
defense, unless these procedures would create a security risk
in the particular case; and (4) some assistance in the
collection and presentation of evidence if the inmate is
illiterate or the case appears complex. See Henson v.
U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir.
2000); Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410,
412 (5th Cir. 1993); Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 563-66 (1974).
there must be “some evidence” that supports the
disciplinary decision. Id. A court's
determination of whether this standard is satisfied does not
require examination of the entire record, independent
assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of
the evidence. See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). “Prison
disciplinary proceedings are overturned only where no
evidence in the record supports the decision.”
Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874, 877 (5th Cir.
2001). The information provided in a written incident report,
standing alone, can satisfy the “some evidence”
standard. See Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534, 537
(5th Cir. 2001).
does not claim that he was deprived of any of the
requirements of Wolff. Beadles declined a staff
representative and declined the opportunity to call
witnesses. (Doc. 1-2, p. 10). Beadles presented no
exculpatory evidence at the disciplinary hearing, and he made
the statement that he “just made a mistake.”
(Doc. 1-2, p. 11). Beadles does not allege that he requested
the evidence be retested at the disciplinary hearing, or that
he challenged the results of the test. Even if Beadles had
requested a retest, he would not have been entitled to it.
See Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897,
898 (5th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff was not allowed to retest pipe
residue with respect to disciplinary hearing) (citing
Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985)); Koenig v.
Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison
could deny a prisoner's request for a follow up drug
test, as “accommodating the inmate's asserted right
would create a ripple effect among other prisoners, and
impose a significant administrative burden on prison
officials”); Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753,
755-57 (8th Cir. 1986) (rejecting a challenge to the use of
drug tests without confirmatory retesting); Bolanas v.
Coughlin, 91-cv-5330, 1993 WL 762112, at *21 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 15, 1993) (prisoner's due process rights in prison
disciplinary proceeding were not violated because “[i]t
was not improper to rely on only one test of the white
powder. The test used was reliable, and it was not necessary
to send it outside the facility to be tested, as plaintiff
does not present non-conclusory allegations regarding the
unreliability of the drug test. Beadles did not contest the
accuracy of the drug test at the disciplinary hearing, or ask
to present any evidence. There is some evidence of
Beadles's guilt, including the officer's statement,
the drug test, and Beadles's statement that he
“just made a mistake.” (Doc. 1-2, pp. 10-11).