United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
T. TRIMBLE, JR. JUDGE
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 Alex Freeman
(#41692-074) (“Freeman”). Freeman is an inmate in
the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Freeman challenges a
disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of good
alleges that Inmate Devonte Travier's property was
searched pending his release from prison. Two sealed, postage
paid letters were found in Inmate Travier's property,
addressed to individuals in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and
Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Doc. 1-3, p. 1). One letter was
signed: “Vic, ” and the other was signed:
“Vic da' Don.” The subject of the letters was
obtaining drugs and cell phones at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana, where Freeman and Inmate
Travier were incarcerated at the time. (Doc. 1-3, p. 1).
Approximately one month later, Freeman was identified as
“Vic” because his nicknames include: “Lil
Vic, ” “Little Vic, ” and “Vic
Freeman.” (Doc. 1-3, p. 7).
both letters were signed by someone with Freeman's
nickname, and both addressees had some connection to Freeman,
he was charged with a disciplinary violation. (Doc. 1-3, p.
Instruction to Amend
Freeman must show that he exhausted administrative
district court has authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus
if a prisoner is in custody in violation of the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Although the statute does not explicitly require
prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing a petition, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit has held that prisoners must exhaust available
administrative remedies before seeking relief in court.
See Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994).
In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, “a
prisoner must complete the administrative process in
accordance with applicable procedural rules....”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). As a
result, inmates must exhaust their administrative remedies in
a procedurally correct manner. See Dillon v. Rogers,
596 F.3d 260, 268 (5th Cir. 2010).
administrative remedy procedures are set forth in Title 28
C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.18, which provides formal
review of any complaint that relates to any aspect of the
inmate's confinement. Under § 542.14(d)(2),
Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) appeals shall be submitted
initially to the Regional Director where the inmate is
located. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(2) (2016).
If the inmate is dissatisfied with the regional response, he
or she may file a national appeal with the Office of General
Counsel in Washington, D.C., within 30 calendar days of the
date the Regional Director signed the response. See
28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a) (2016). Appeal to the Office of
General Counsel is the final administrative appeal in the BOP
states that he appealed to the Regional Director, and his
appeal was denied. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Freeman does not state
whether he sought further review in the administrative
process. Freeman must amend his petition to show complete
exhaustion. See Martin v. Young, 607 Fed.Appx. 421,
422 (5th Cir. 2015) (substantial compliance is insufficient
to satisfy the requirements of exhaustion) (citing Wright
v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Freeman should state whether he completed each step of the
administrative process, and he should provide copies of the
response received at each step.
Freeman must amend to show that he was denied due
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 ...