Patrick Ester v. Dallas Jones ( 2018 )

Case: 18-40081 Document: 00514722829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-40081 November 14, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
PATRICK FITZGERALD ESTER,
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
DALLAS JONES, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:17-CV-106
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Patrick Fitzgerald Ester, federal prisoner # 06862-041, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment and denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition challenging his disciplinary conviction that resulted in the
disallowance of 27 days of good conduct time and other sanctions. Ester
argues, as he did in the district court, that the disciplinary proceedings failed
to comport with due process because there was insufficient evidence to support
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 18-40081 Document: 00514722829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2018
No. 18-40081
his conviction for fighting with another person. He contends that the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) fabricated evidence by misconstruing
statements from the reporting officer that Ester was acting aggressively when
he was found wrestling another inmate.
On appeal from the denial of a § 2241 petition, the district court’s factual
findings are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusions of law are reviewed
de novo. Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). We review a
district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo, employing the same
standard used by the district court. McFaul v. Venezuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571
(5th Cir. 2012).
When a prisoner has a liberty interest in good-time credits, disallowance
of such credits must comply with minimal procedural requirements. See
Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). 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). Rather, a disciplinary proceeding
comports with due process if, among other things not at issue in this appeal,
there is “some evidence” in the record to support the disciplinary conviction.
Richards v. Dretke, 394 F.3d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 2004).
In the instant case, the incident report states that the reporting officer
observed Ester fighting and wrestling in an aggressive manner, as evidence by
the fact that he and the inmate were bumping into the locker and the bunk.
Thus, Ester’s argument is without support. Moreover, we do not independently
assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence in determining whether
there is some evidence to support a disciplinary conviction. Richards, 394 F.3d
at 294. The incident report constitutes “some evidence” to support the
2
Case: 18-40081 Document: 00514722829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2018
No. 18-40081
disciplinary conviction, and Ester did not establish a due process violation. See
Richards, 394 F.3d at 294.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting
summary judgment or in denying § 2241 relief. See McFaul, 684 F.3d at 571;
Christopher, 342 F.3d at 381. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3