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.

Haynes v. USA

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

October 2, 2019

STEVEN HAYNES REG. # 06238-078
v.
USA

         SECTION P

          JAMES D. CAIN, JR. JUDGE.

          AMEND 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 Steven Haynes. Haynes is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Center at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”). His petition relates to events that occurred at the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola, Florida (“FPCP”). This matter was filed in the Northern District of Florida on June 20, 2019. Doc. 1. It was transferred to the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division on July 31, 2019. Doc. 6. This 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.

         I.

         Background

         Haynes brings this petition to challenge his deprivation of good conduct time and other privileges as a result of a prison disciplinary proceeding that occurred when he was incarcerated at FPCP. Doc. 1. Haynes was charged with committing Prohibited Act Code 108, Possession of a Hazardous Tool (Cell Phone), in an incident report filed on November 22, 2017. Doc. 1, p. 22. The report stated that a cell phone had been recovered the previous day, and that a correctional officer received a text message on that phone while examining it. Id. The text message was sent from a No. identified as belonging to a friend of Haynes's on his phone list. Id. Further investigation revealed that Haynes was the only inmate with any connection noted to that number.[1] Id. Haynes vehemently denied the charge, and the matter was referred to the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) for hearing. Id.

         The hearing took place on December 11, 2017. Id. at p. 20. At that time the DHO considered evidence, including the connection between Haynes and the phone No. and the fact that another message had been discovered on the phone, requesting that money be sent to Haynes' BOP account. Id. at p. 21. He also noted that Haynes had exercised his right to remain silent during the hearing, neither confirming nor denying that he had possessed/used the phone. Id. Based on this evidence, the DHO found that Haynes had committed the charged offense and imposed the following sanctions: (1) disallowance of 41 days vested good conduct time and forfeiture of 54 days of non-vested good conduct time, (2) loss of commissary privileges for six months, and (3) loss of telephone privileges for six months. Id.

         Haynes first brought a petition to seek expungement of the disciplinary proceedings, restoration of his good conduct time, an injunction “to prevent retaliation or further malfeasance, ” and any monetary award the court deems appropriate to compensate him for his mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of phone and commissary privileges in 2018. See Haynes v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-1542 (W.D. La. 11/26/18). He asserted the same grounds for relief that he asserts in the instant suit, that BOP officials violated his rights (1) under the Fourth Amendment by “seizing” him and transferring him to a higher security facility based on a disciplinary conviction grounded on insufficient evidence, (2) under the Fifth Amendment by requiring him to answer for a crime he did not commit and failing to advise him of his rights before the hearing, [2] (3) under the Sixth Amendment by denying him an impartial jury, and (4) under the Eighth Amendment by imposing excessive sanctions. Id. at doc. 1, pp. 10-15.

         The undersigned in that matter ordered petitioner to amend his petition to make corrections noted and to dismiss those claims he could not remedy. Doc. 8. Haynes responded with an amended complaint and memorandum. Doc. 9. However, the Court found that he failed to cure the deficiencies and therefore, failed to state a claim cognizable under § 2241. Doc. 10. Accordingly, the matter was denied and dismissed without prejudice.

         As noted above, the suit presently before this Court was originally filed in the Northern District of Florida and subsequently transferred. It makes the same claims and asserts the same grounds for relief as Haynes v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 18-cv-1542.[3]

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Screening of ...


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.