United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
STEVEN HAYNES REG. # 06238-078
D. CAIN, JR. JUDGE.
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 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.
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. Id. Haynes vehemently denied the
charge, and the matter was referred to the disciplinary
hearing officer (“DHO”) for hearing. Id.
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.
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,  (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.
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
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.
Screening of ...