Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14925
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00565-WTH-PRL
GARY ROBINSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FCC COLEMAN - USP II WARDEN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 5, 2019)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Robinson, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas relief. Robinson argues that he was denied
Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 2 of 4
due process concerning a disciplinary action that reduced his good conduct time,
thereby increasing the length of his imprisonment. After careful review, we affirm.
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition, we review the
district court’s findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. Coloma
v. Holder,
445 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2006). “Clear error is a highly deferential
standard of review.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist.,
425 F.3d 1325, 1350
(11th Cir.2005). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is
evidence to support it, “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. (quotation
omitted). We may affirm the district court’s decision for any reason supported by
the record. United States v. Al–Arian,
514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008).
We’ve explained that “[d]etermining whether one was deprived of liberty
presents a unique challenge with prisoners, who are already deprived of their liberty
in the ordinary understanding of the word.” Kirby v. Siegelman,
195 F.3d 1285,
1290 (11th Cir. 1999). Procedural safeguards are demanded, however, if a prisoner
is subjected to a change in the conditions of confinement “so severe that it essentially
exceeds the sentence imposed by the court,” or if a prisoner is deprived of some
consistently bestowed benefit that “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the
inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Id. at 1291 (quotation
2
Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 3 of 4
omitted). We’ve also said that the deprivation of good conduct time qualifies as an
“atypical and significant hardship.”
Id.
In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court set out the hearing procedures that
must be satisfied to meet the standards of due process in the prison setting.
418 U.S.
539 (1974). According to Wolff, prisoners must receive: (1) written notice of the
charges against them at least 24 hours before the corresponding hearing; (2) an
opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, so long as doing so
is consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) a written
statement by the factfinder outlining the evidence relied on and the reasons for the
disciplinary action.
Id. at 563-67.
Here, the district court did not err in denying Robinson’s § 2241 petition
because the undisputed facts reflect that prison officials afforded him due process
throughout his disciplinary proceeding. Specifically, Robinson received a copy of
his incident report, detailing the charges against him, almost three years before his
disciplinary hearing. Prison officials advised Robinson of his right to call witnesses
and present documentary evidence at the hearing, but he declined to do either.
Further, Robinson obtained the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s written statement that
outlined the evidence relied upon and the reason for the disciplinary action. On this
record, prison officials afforded Robinson due process in connection with the
3
Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 4 of 4
hearing that led to his loss of good conduct time, and the district court did not err in
denying his § 2241 petition based on that finding. See
id.
AFFIRMED.
4
