Charles B. Anderson, Jr. v. FCC Coleman - USP II Warden , 649 F. App'x 730 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13654 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13654
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00155-WTH-PRL
CHARLES B. ANDERSON, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FCC COLEMAN - USP II WARDEN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 3, 2016)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Anderson, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging
the result of a prison disciplinary hearing. Anderson seeks expungement of the
Case: 15-13654 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 2 of 4
disciplinary report from his record and restoration of the good-conduct time he
lost. On appeal, Anderson argues that: (1) there is no evidence to support finding
him guilty of fighting with another inmate; (2) the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
violated his due process rights by not providing him with a video of the fight that
was the subject of the disciplinary hearing; and (3) he was denied his right to
present witnesses, two inmates who would have exonerated him, by the BOP’s
failure to timely conduct his hearing before the discipline hearing officer (“DHO”).
After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief under § 2241.
Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th Cir. 2011). “A district court’s factual
findings are reviewed for clear error.” Id. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed.
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Because
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional requirement in a §
2241 proceeding, we can deny a § 2241 petition on the merits without addressing
exhaustion. Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th Cir. 2015).
The Supreme Court has held that the following minimum due process
procedures are required in a prisoner’s disciplinary proceeding: (1) at least 24
hours’ notice of the charges so that the prisoner can prepare for the hearing; (2) a
written statement by the factfinder detailing what evidence was relied upon and
why disciplinary action was taken; and (3) the qualified right to call witnesses and
2
Case: 15-13654 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 3 of 4
present documentary evidence, if not “unduly hazardous to institutional safety or
correctional goals.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). In
determining whether a prisoner has received due process, in the context of
revocation of good-time credits, a court is not required to examine the entire
record, weigh the evidence, or independently assess the credibility of witnesses.
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). The
relevant question is only whether the hearing officer’s findings are supported “by
some evidence in the record.” Id. at 454.
In this case, Anderson’s disciplinary proceedings satisfied the due process
requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Wolff. Anderson was notified of
the DHO hearing more than two months beforehand, the DHO Report explained
the evidence it relied upon, and Anderson was allowed to present documentary
evidence. Although the two inmate witnesses Anderson sought to present were not
available, that was because one had been released from custody and the other could
not be located by the BOP based on the identifying information provided by
Anderson. Anderson acknowledged on his Central Office Administrative Remedy
Appeal that he initially waived the right to witnesses until he learned that there was
no video of the incident. On this record, we cannot say that the district court’s
factual findings -- that Anderson initially waived his right to call witnesses and that
3
Case: 15-13654 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 4 of 4
a delay in the DHO hearing was caused by attempts to identify Anderson’s
requested witnesses -- were clearly erroneous.
Moreover, regardless of whether the two witnesses would have testified as
Anderson says that they would, the incident report contains one staff member’s
statement that Anderson and the other inmate were exchanging punches and
striking each other in the head and upper torso area. Because the staff member’s
statement in the incident report constitutes “some evidence in the record,” this
evidence is sufficient to support the DHO’s findings that Anderson fought with
another inmate. Id. Finally, although Anderson argues that his due process rights
were violated by the BOP failing to turn over video of the incident, there was no
due process violation since the record indicates that video of the incident does not
exist. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Anderson’s § 2241 habeas corpus
petition.
AFFIRMED.
4