United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
ERIC MEADE REG. # 17781-032
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner Eric
Meade. Meade is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institute at Oakdale, Louisiana. He
seeks habeas relief from disciplinary proceedings that
occurred while he was incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Morgantown (“FCI
Morgantown”) and resulting disallowance of good conduct
matter has been referred to the undersigned for review,
report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and the standing orders of this court. For the
reasons stated below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that
the petition be DENIED and DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
factual basis for Meade's claims is provided in our
preceding Memorandum Order. Doc. 4. Upon review of
Meade's petition, we concluded that we could not
determine the merits of his claims without reviewing the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer's (DHO) report from the
disciplinary proceeding he challenges. Accordingly, we
ordered Meade to provide a copy of that report and he has
complied. Id.; doc. 5.
complains that he was denied due process through those
proceedings because the DHO did not provide “any
evidence” to support his finding that Meade had
committed Prohibited Act Code 108, Possession of a Hazardous
Tool (Cell Phone). Doc. 5; see doc. 5, att. 1. The
DHO report records that Meade was charged with this offense
after a cell phone was discovered at FCI Morgantown and
forensic analysis showed that the phone had been used to
contact a number associated with Meade. Doc. 5, att. 1, p. 2.
At the DHO hearing Meade denied having anything to do with
the cell phone and stated that he had given his mother's
number to another inmate (Groom) because he owed Groom money.
Id. Meade stated that he had provided Groom with the
number so that Groom could direct his girlfriend to call
Meade's mother and tell her where to send the money Meade
owed. Id. at 3. The hearing was adjourned so that
officials could attempt to interview Groom, who had been
transferred to another facility. Id. at 2. It was
then discovered that Groom had been released and so the
interview was not conducted. Id.
proceedings resumed and the DHO found that Meade had
committed the charged offense. In support of his conclusion
he noted the contacts between the contraband cell phone and
Meade's mother's phone number. Id. at 3. He
The DHO considered your defense in which you deny using this
cellular phone and claim that it was inmate Groom who used
this phone in order to collect a debt you owed him; however,
your claim could not be verified and the DHO believes you
make this claim in an effort to have the charge against you
dismissed. The DHO believes that if inmate Groom had truly
used this phone as you claim, that you would have made this
accusation at the previous stages of the discipline process
so that this accusation could be investigated by the staff
member assigned to conduct an investigation. Instead, you
wait 15 days to present to any staff member your claim.
It is clear in the incident report and the supporting
documentation that this phone was used to contact a phone
number which is only associated with you. The DHO believes
that if any other inmate at FCI Morgantown had a reason to
contact this same number, it would be reasonable to believe
that that inmate would have also placed this number on their
contact list. As you are the only inmate to which this phone
number is associated with, you bear the responsibility for
contacting this phone number with this cellular phone.
Id. The DHO then imposed sanctions, including loss
of 41 days of good conduct time. Meade brings this action
seeking reversal of the disciplinary adjudication and
restoration of the good conduct time. Doc. 1.