Ramirez v. Dretke , 86 F. App'x 21 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 12, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_________________________ Clerk
No. 03-40740
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
DANIEL RAMIREZ
Petitioner - Appellee
v.
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent - Appellant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
(C-02-CV-497)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1
In this appeal we review the magistrate judge's decision granting Petitioner-Appellee,
Daniel Ramirez, habeas corpus relief from his disciplinary conviction for aiding and abetting an
attempt to escape. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
-1-
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ramirez, Texas prisoner #627467, was charged with aiding an attempt to escape by
stealing, possessing, and then selling a set of medical clothing he obtained while working in the
prison laundry. The relevant prison regulations define an attempt to escape as “possession of
contraband intended to be used in attempting to escape,” and contraband as “clothes that are not
approved for an offender to have.”
The accusing officer testified at the disciplinary hearing that Ramirez admitted to him that
he took the medical clothing from the prison laundry and sold it to Corey Hamilton, who later
sold the clothing to another inmate, Brooks, on whom the contraband clothing was eventually
found. Ramirez contradicted the officer’s testimony, and claimed that prison officials received
their information from an unnamed informant.
After being found guilty by the disciplinary hearing officer, Ramirez received 30 days’
commissary restriction, 30 days’ cell restriction, 15 days’ solitary confinement, and loss of 730
days of good-conduct time. Ramirez exhausted his administrative remedies through the prison
grievance procedure and subsequently filed a federal habeas petition.
Ramirez alleged in his petition that prison authorities received false information from a
confidential informant, and that neither he, Hamilton, nor Brooks had tried to escape. He also
alleged that there was no evidence to support a finding of guilt because the medical clothing was
not found in his possession, and there was no written confession acknowledging that he had ever
possessed the clothing. The government responded that the incident report and the accusing
officer’s testimony were sufficient to support a finding of guilt.
-2-
Both parties moved for summary judgment and the magistrate judge granted habeas relief
on Ramirez’s claim that there was no evidence to support the finding of guilt. The government
timely appealed.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo whether there was any evidence to support a prison disciplinary
board’s finding. Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534, 535 (5th Cir. 2001). We need not examine the
entire record, independently assess the credibility of witnesses, or weigh the evidence, but instead,
the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record to support the conclusion
reached by the disciplinary board. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472
U.S. 445, 455-56 (1995).
III.
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING DISCIPLINARY CONVICTION
By requiring that all evidence from the prison disciplinary hearing bear a certain indica of
reliability, the magistrate judge determined that there was no evidence that Ramirez aided an
attempt to escape. Federal courts cannot, however, make independent determinations or weigh
the evidence. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56.
The court below based its ruling on Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2001), in
which a prisoner was granted habeas relief from a conviction for attempting to escape. In that
case, bolt cutters were found in a common area and prison officials received information that the
inmate was going to try to escape. Id. at 875. The accusing officer who testified at the hearing
had not spoken to the informant. Id. The court concluded that Broussard’s right to process had
-3-
been violated because neither the confidential informant, nor a credibility witness, testified at the
hearing, and because the bolt cutters had been found in a common area accessible by many
inmates. Id. at 876-77.
This case is distinguishable though, because the accusing officer testified that Ramirez
admitted to him that he stole, possessed, and then sold the contraband clothing. Further, the
officer testified as to the medical clothing’s usefulness in an attempt to escape. Ramirez presented
no evidence at the hearing or in his petition that prison officials relied on an informant’s tip.
While the evidence is not overwhelming, there is some evidence, and therefore, the standard for
upholding the disciplinary conviction is met.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand.
-4-