Yakov Drabovskiy v. Warden Allenwood FCI ( 2015 )

ALD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3850
___________
YAKOV G. DRABOVSKIY,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN, ALLENWOOD FCI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No.: 3-14-cv-00805)
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 11, 2014
Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 12, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Yakov Drabovskiy, a federal inmate, appeals the District Court’s
denial of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which Drabovskiy
sought relief from sanctions imposed on him during prison disciplinary proceedings.
Because the appeal fails to present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
The parties are familiar with the facts, which we only briefly summarize here.
Drabovskiy was working in the prison library at FCI Allenwood when a staff member
ordered him to relinquish documents on which he was working. Drabovskiy admits that
he refused to comply initially and that he shredded the paperwork. He denies the staff
member’s report that he used profanity when refusing the order. Drabovskiy was notified
that he was being charged with violating prison regulations and a hearing was held two
weeks later. The notice of hearing, signed by Drabovskiy, indicates that he waived the
right to a staff representative and to call witnesses at the hearing.
At the hearing, Drabovskiy neither admitted nor denied the charge, instead
offering the explanation that he had rightfully refused to comply with the order because
he was working on sensitive legal papers. Drabovskiy contends he was within his rights
to destroy the document before surrendering it to staff to prevent infringement of the
patent on which he was working. The disciplinary hearing officer concluded that
Drabovskiy had committed two of the three charged violations and sanctioned
Drabovskiy with thirty days of disciplinary segregation, loss of twenty-six days of good
conduct time, loss of phone privileges for four months, and a twenty dollar fine.
2
Drabovskiy attempted to appeal to the Regional Director but failed to submit his appeal
in the proper form. He was given notice of the defect and an opportunity to remedy it by
filing corrected paperwork within ten days. Drabovskiy did not file until twenty days
after the notice. His second attempt to appeal was therefore rejected as untimely.
Drabovskiy filed a habeas action seeking relief from the disciplinary sanctions, arguing
that he was deprived of due process and that the decision to sanction him was not
supported by evidence. The District Court adopted the findings of the Magistrate Judge
and denied Drabovskiy’s habeas petition. Drabovskiy now appeals from the District
Court’s judgment.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review
the District Court’s denial of habeas relief de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2013). We may affirm a District Court's
judgment on any grounds supported by the record.2 Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 122
n.1 (3d Cir. 2001).
The District Court properly denied Drabovskiy’s request for habeas relief related
to the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the hearing officer. “[T]he requirements of
due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary
1
Drabovskiy does not need a certificate of appealability because he is a federal prisoner
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-65
(3d Cir. 2000) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct.
641 (2012).
2
The District Court determined that Drabovskiy failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. We need not reach the question of exhaustion because the District Court
correctly concluded that Drabovskiy’s claims fail on the merits.
3
board to revoke good time credits.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). “[T]he 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. The record of the disciplinary hearing includes the statement of the staff
member, a photograph of the shredded paperwork, and Drabovskiy’s own admission that
he initially refused the order, argued with staff, and shredded the paperwork. Drabovskiy
maintains that he rightfully withheld and then destroyed the paperwork and therefore
cannot be sanctioned for his actions. However, there is no support in law for that
contention. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s
decision.
The District Court also properly rejected Drabovskiy’s argument that he was
deprived of due process because prison officials failed to identify and interview witnesses
who were in the library during the incident. Prisoners retain a right to due process in
disciplinary proceedings. However, “[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a
criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings
does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). “[T]he inmate facing
disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to
institutional safety or correctional goals . . .” Id. at 566. Drabovskiy did not list, request,
or attempt to describe any witnesses in the paperwork he filled out prior to the hearing.
In fact, he affirmatively waived the right to call witnesses. The District Court properly
denied Drabovskiy’s request for habeas relief related to this issue.
4
Finally, the District Court was correct in rejecting Drabovskiy’s assertion that the
hearing officer’s lack of objectivity violated Drabovskiy’s due process rights.
Drabovskiy offered no facts to support his allegation of bias and does not indicate any
reason why the hearing officer should not have been permitted to adjudicate his
discipline. “[T]he requirement of an impartial tribunal prohibits only those officials who
have a direct personal or otherwise substantal [sic] involvement, such as major
participation in a judgmental or decision-making role, in the circumstances underlying
the charge from sitting on the disciplinary body.” Meyers v. Aldredge, 492 F.2d 296, 306
(3d Cir. 1974). Drabovskiy’s claim of general bias is weakened by the fact that the
hearing officer dismissed one of the three charges levied against him. The District Court
properly denied Drabovskiy’s request for habeas relief on this claim.
There being no substantial question presented on appeal, we will summarily affirm
the decision of the District Court denying Drabovskiy’s petition for habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241.
5