Lett v. Lovett ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467      Date Filed: 02/24/2023   Page: 1
    FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 24, 2023
    _________________________________
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    Clerk of Court
    ANTHONY H. LETT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                                         No. 22-1124
    (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-03212-RMR)
    MR. LOVETT, Warden,                                         (D. Colo.)
    Respondent - Appellee.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Anthony Lett, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s
    denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     habeas petition challenging his prison disciplinary
    conviction for possessing a dangerous weapon in federal prison. Exercising
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , we affirm. We also dismiss Mr. Lett’s appeal of
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
    estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    1
    We construe Mr. Lett’s pro se filings liberally. See Childers v. Crow, 
    1 F.4th 792
    , 798 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 
    142 S. Ct. 2718 (2022)
    .
    Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023       Page: 2
    the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration for lack of appellate
    jurisdiction.
    I. Background
    A prison guard saw Mr. Lett hand a “dark brown” “shaft shaped item” to
    another prisoner, Stanley Walker. R. at 69. The guard saw Mr. Walker “place[] the
    object into his right sock.” 
    Id.
     The guard searched Mr. Walker and found an
    improvised knife. “The weapon was metal[,] approximately 7.5 inches long[,] and
    sharpened to a point with a dark brown bed sheet ripped into strips to wrap one end
    so it could be used as a handle. A piece of cardboard was used to sheath the
    sharpened end.” 
    Id.
    Prison officials later served Mr. Lett with an incident report charging him with
    possessing a dangerous weapon and aiding in destroying or disposing of the weapon.
    They also notified him of his rights in the pending disciplinary proceeding, which
    included access to a staff representative to help him with his case and the right to
    present evidence. Mr. Lett requested a staff representative, and prison officials
    granted this request.
    At the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Lett said he “had no knowledge of the
    weapon.” R. at 13. He called no witnesses and did not submit documentary or video
    evidence in support of his defense. His staff representative told the hearing officer
    Mr. Lett “did not know what a staff rep was for and he requested no video to be
    viewed.” 
    Id.
     The hearing officer considered these statements, the guard’s statement,
    a photograph of the shank, and Mr. Lett’s failure to make a statement of defense
    2
    Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467        Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 3
    earlier in the investigation. The hearing officer concluded “the greater weight of the
    evidence” supported the possession charge. R. at 15. He sanctioned Mr. Lett by
    imposing 50 disciplinary segregation days and revoking 41 days of good conduct
    time credit and six months of commissary privileges.
    After unsuccessfully appealing his disciplinary conviction through
    administrative channels, Mr. Lett filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition in the district
    court. The district court construed his § 2241 petition as “specifically challeng[ing]
    only the sufficiency of the evidence” supporting the disciplinary conviction. R. at
    88. The district court evaluated the sufficiency claim according to the “some
    evidence” standard—i.e., “whether there is any evidence in the record that could
    support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board,” Superintendent, Mass.
    Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 
    472 U.S. 445
    , 455–56 (1985)—and determined the evidence
    considered by the hearing officer was sufficient to support Mr. Lett’s disciplinary
    conviction. To the extent Mr. Lett was arguing that other evidence the hearing
    officer failed to consider, such as Mr. Walker’s testimony or video surveillance
    footage, might have produced a different outcome, the district court rejected that
    argument because the record did not show Mr. Lett had asked the hearing officer to
    review anything beyond what had been considered. The district court also found
    unavailing any due process claim based on an argument that Mr. Lett had been
    prevented from presenting video evidence of the incident. According to the district
    court, Mr. Lett did “not allege that he asked the [hearing officer] to view the video
    evidence and he fail[ed] to explain why he did not tell the [hearing officer] that his
    3
    Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467        Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 4
    staff representative had failed to obtain video evidence he had requested.” R. at 91.
    On April 1, 2022, the district court denied the § 2241 petition on the merits and
    entered a final judgment that same day.
    On April 15, 2022, Mr. Lett filed pro se a document titled “Petition for
    Reconsideration on the Alternative Petition Giving Notice of Appeal ‘In[]forma
    Pauper[i]s.’” R. at 93 (capitalization normalized). In this filing, Mr. Lett sought
    reconsideration of the district court’s § 2241 denial order under Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). He argued the district court should have granted his
    petition because his staff representative’s role “equate[d] to that of a court appointed
    counsel in a court proceeding,” R. at 94, and his staff representative rendered
    constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to obtain and present video evidence in
    the disciplinary proceedings. “In the [a]lternative,” Mr. Lett provided notice of his
    intent to appeal and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. R. at 93.
    The district court docketed this document twice, once as a notice of appeal of
    the district court’s April 1 order and judgment, and again as a motion for
    reconsideration of the April 1 order. This court then entered an order abating the
    appeal pending the district court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration,
    stating “the notice of appeal will become effective when the district court enters an
    order disposing of the post-judgment motion.” Lett v. Lovett, No. 22-1124, Order
    (10th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022). The district court denied the motion for reconsideration on
    April 29, 2022, ruling that any alleged failures by the staff representative would not
    impact its prior “analysis because there is no right to counsel in prison disciplinary
    4
    Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 5
    proceedings.” R. at 106 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 
    418 U.S. 539
    , 570 (1974)).
    Mr. Lett did not file a new or amended notice of appeal related to the district court’s
    April 29 order.
    II. Discussion
    Mr. Lett argues the district court made two errors in denying his § 2241
    petition: (1) the district court should have found a violation of his due process and
    equal protection rights based on his staff representative’s ineffective assistance in the
    disciplinary proceedings; and (2) the district court should have found a violation of
    his due process and equal protection rights because the evidence presented at his
    disciplinary hearing did not support his disciplinary conviction. We lack appellate
    jurisdiction to consider his first argument and reject his second argument on the
    merits.
    The district court did not address Mr. Lett’s ineffective-assistance argument
    until its April 29 order denying his motion for reconsideration. While Mr. Lett seeks
    to challenge the April 29 order in this appeal, Mr. Lett did not file a new or amended
    notice of appeal designating the April 29 order after he filed his initial notice on
    April 15. “When an appellant challenges an order ruling on a motion governed by
    Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), a new or amended notice of appeal is necessary even if
    the issue raised in the motion and sought to be challenged could also have been
    challenged in an appeal from the final judgment.” Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Invs.,
    Ltd., 
    911 F.3d 1000
    , 1010 (10th Cir. 2018). Because Mr. Lett filed his
    reconsideration motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)
    5
    Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 6
    within 28 days of the district court’s judgment, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
    4(a)(4)(B)(ii) governed the district court’s April 29 order denying the motion. See
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (stating the rule applies to “an order disposing of any
    motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi)
    (listing motions “to alter or amend the judgment under [Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure] 59” and motions “for relief under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 60 if
    the motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered”). Mr. Lett
    therefore had to file a new or amended notice designating the April 29 order to
    preserve appellate review of the district court’s rejection of his ineffective-assistance
    argument. Because he did not, we must dismiss his challenge to the April 29 order
    for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Husky Ventures, 
    911 F.3d at 1010
    .
    We acknowledge the apparent harshness of this holding, particularly because
    even the government does not question our jurisdiction and the district court’s
    decision to treat Mr. Lett’s petition for reconsideration as a notice of appeal could
    have understandably caused confusion about the preservation of Mr. Lett’s arguments
    on appeal. But even where “neither party challenges our appellate jurisdiction, we
    have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction.” Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt
    Camp, Inc., 
    273 F.3d 1271
    , 1274 (10th Cir. 2001). And “[a]lthough a pro se
    litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard
    than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, this court has repeatedly insisted that pro
    se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett v.
    Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 
    425 F.3d 836
    , 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets,
    6
    Appellate Case: 22-1124    Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 7
    citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Applying these principles here, we
    lack jurisdiction to review the April 29 order.2
    Mr. Lett next argues the district court erroneously rejected his claim prison
    officials violated his due process rights by convicting him without sufficient
    evidence. “When reviewing the denial of a habeas petition under § 2241, we review
    the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and accept its factual findings unless
    clearly erroneous.” Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 
    861 F.3d 1034
    , 1042 (10th Cir. 2017)
    (internal quotation marks omitted). As we explain, the district court did not err.
    Prisoners possess a liberty interest in their statutorily provided good-time
    credits. See Wolff, 
    418 U.S. at 557
    . And prisoners therefore cannot be deprived of
    those credits without due process. See 
    id.
     But “the requirements of due process are
    satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to
    revoke good time credits.” Hill, 
    472 U.S. at 455
    .3 “Ascertaining whether this
    2
    Even if we had jurisdiction to consider the argument, we would reject it.
    Mr. Lett did not establish a due process right to assistance in his disciplinary
    proceedings. See Wolff, 
    418 U.S. at 570
     (recognizing a due process right to
    assistance “[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved,” or when “the complexity of the
    issue makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence
    necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case”). And Mr. Lett likewise did
    not establish a due process violation based on the staff representative’s performance
    in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. See Hovater v. Robinson, 
    1 F.3d 1063
    , 1068 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[A] failure to adhere to administrative regulations does
    not equate to a constitutional violation.”).
    3
    Due process also requires that an inmate “receive: (1) advance written notice
    of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional
    safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in
    his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on
    7
    Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467         Date Filed: 02/24/2023       Page: 8
    standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent
    assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the
    relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the
    conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” 
    Id.
     at 455–56 (emphasis added).
    “The decision can be upheld even if the evidence supporting the decision is
    ‘meager.’” Mitchell v. Maynard, 
    80 F.3d 1433
    , 1445 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hill,
    
    472 U.S. at 457
    ).
    Mr. Lett argues the decision by the prison disciplinary board is not supported
    by sufficient evidence because the hearing officer placed too much weight on the
    prison guard’s statement. He suggests evidence not presented at the disciplinary
    hearing, such as a fingerprint analysis of the shank, security footage, or Mr. Walker’s
    testimony, might have exonerated him. But the record does not show Mr. Lett ever
    asked the hearing officer to consider any of this evidence. Just the opposite. The
    record shows “he requested no video to be viewed,” R. at 65 (internal quotation
    marks omitted), and “waived [his] right to witnesses,” R. at 66. Under the
    circumstances, we discern no due process violation in the hearing officer’s failure to
    consider this evidence. See Ramer v. Kerby, 
    936 F.2d 1102
    , 1105 (10th Cir. 1991)
    (finding no due process violation where the inmate “effectively den[ied] [prison
    officials] the opportunity to evaluate his request to present . . . testimony at his
    hearing” because the inmate “had waived his right to obtain testimony from these
    and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Hill, 
    472 U.S. at 454
    . Mr. Lett does not
    contend the prison failed to satisfy these due process requirements.
    8
    Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467        Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 9
    witnesses”); cf. Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 
    487 F.3d 808
    , 813–14 (10th Cir.
    2007) (holding that the disciplinary hearing officer’s “unjustified refusal to produce
    and review” a video of the incident in question “deprived [the inmate] of the process
    due him,” where the inmate had “reiterated” to the hearing officer “a request [he] had
    consistently made before” for prison officials to “review videotape records”).
    On de novo review, we agree with the district court that the evidence
    considered by the hearing officer satisfies the “some evidence” standard. The
    guard’s statement describes how the guard saw Mr. Lett hand a “dark brown” “shaft
    shaped item” to Mr. Walker and further describes recovering an improvised knife
    from Mr. Walker. The photograph of the improvised knife recovered by the guard
    illustrates its dangerous nature and confirms the guard’s description. Taken together,
    this amounts to “some evidence” Mr. Lett possessed a dangerous weapon. See, e.g.,
    Ruelas v. Zuercher, 
    240 F. App’x 796
    , 797 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding an incident
    “report alone constitute[d] ‘some evidence’ of [the convicted inmate’s] guilt”);
    Longstreth v. Franklin, 
    240 F. App’x 264
    , 267 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding an “incident
    report was ‘some evidence’”); Hartsfield v. Nichols, 
    511 F.3d 826
    , 831 (8th Cir.
    2008) (“[A] report from a correctional officer, even if disputed by the inmate and
    supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as ‘some evidence’ upon which to
    base a prison disciplinary violation.”); McPherson v. McBride, 
    188 F.3d 784
    , 786
    (7th Cir. 1999) (holding a correctional officer’s “disciplinary report . . . alone
    9
    Appellate Case: 22-1124     Document: 010110817467       Date Filed: 02/24/2023    Page: 10
    provide[d] ‘some evidence’ for the” disciplinary conviction).4 That Mr. Lett disputed
    the guard’s report by stating he “had no knowledge of the weapon or disposed of it,”
    id. at 13, does not undermine our conclusion because we do not “assess[] the
    credibility of witnesses[] or weigh[] . . . the evidence,” Hill, 
    472 U.S. at 455
    . We
    instead only consider “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support
    the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” 
    Id.
     at 455–56. And in this case,
    considered under the applicable legal standard, there was evidence in the record that
    supported the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.5
    III. Conclusion
    We affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Lett’s § 2241 petition. We dismiss
    Mr. Lett’s appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.
    We grant Mr. Lett’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and
    fees.
    Entered for the Court
    Veronica S. Rossman
    Circuit Judge
    4
    Unpublished cases cited in this decision are not binding precedent, but we
    consider them for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R.
    32.1(A).
    5
    Mr. Lett’s opening brief also argues prison officials violated his right to
    equal protection. But “government action challenged on equal-protection grounds
    must ‘affect some groups of citizens differently than others.’” Citizens for Const.
    Integrity v. United States, 
    57 F.4th 750
    , 765 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting Engquist v. Or.
    Dep’t of Agric., 
    553 U.S. 591
    , 601 (2008)). And Mr. Lett does not argue prison
    officials treated him differently than any similarly-situated individual. We therefore
    reject his equal protection argument.
    10