Corral v. Samuels

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-26-2008
Corral v. Samuels
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2444
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Corral v. Samuels" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 475.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/475
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-276 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2444
___________
PABLO FAVELA CORRAL,
Appellant
v.
CHARLES SAMUELS, WARDEN; ANTHONY BOYCE; DHO; HARRELL WATTS,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL INMATE APPEALS; SCOTT DODRILL,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST REGION BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 07-2779)
District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P.
10.6
August 14, 2008
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 26, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pablo Favela Corral, a pro se prisoner incarcerated at FCI-Fort Dix, appeals an
order of the District Court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Appellees, officials at the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), have filed a motion for summary affirmance. We will grant the motion.
In his habeas petition, Corral asserts that BOP officials wrongfully charged him
with three disciplinary violations (threatening another with bodily harm, insolence
towards staff, and using obscene/abusive language) and that the Disciplinary Hearing
Officer (“DHO”) wrongfully sanctioned him for these violations. As a result of the
sanction imposed, Corral lost 27 days of good time credit and a number of privileges. He
challenges the loss of good time credits in this habeas petition.
Corral, who speaks only Spanish, asserts that BOP officials denied him due
process by failing to obtain an independent translation of his statement to the officer who
filed the charges against him. Corral contends that, if properly translated, his remarks
would not support the charges against him. Relying on a staff member’s translation of
Corral’s statement, the DHO determined that Corral had said the following: “Why are you
f-ing with me. I am going to write your ass up Mother F-er. You will see what is going
to happen to you later[,] punk.” Corral insists that his statement contained no obscenity,
and that, properly translated, said, “Why do you harass me? I’m going to write you up
cuckhold; I’m tired of this foolishness[,] you’ll see later what happens.” The District
Court determined that Corral’s own translation of his statement could be construed as a
threat, based upon the language used and Corral’s concession that he raised his voice
when speaking to the BOP official. Because there was some evidence to support the
2
disciplinary decision regardless of the translation credited, the District Court dismissed
the habeas petition.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A prison disciplinary
determination comports with due process if it is based on some evidence. Superintendent,
Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985) (“[T]he relevant question is
whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by
the disciplinary board.”). Considering Corral’s own translation of his statement, we agree
that the DHO’s decision was based on some evidence. Corral conceded that he raised his
voice and told the officer, “Why do you harass me? I’m going to write you up cuckhold;
I’m tired of this foolishness[,] you’ll see later what happens.” Spoken in a loud tone, this
statement is adequate to support a finding that Corral had made a threat to an officer and
that he had exhibited insolence. Corral’s use of the term “cuckhold” can be considered
abusive language. Under these circumstances, the DHO’s decision was adequately
supported and comported with due process under Hill.
As this appeal presents no substantial question, we will grant appellee’s motion for
summary affirmance. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.1
1
Appellant also raises a number of arguments for the first time on appeal: that he was
not permitted to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, that he was not permitted to
show video surveillance footage of his interaction with BOP officials, and that the
appropriate punishment for obscene speech under BOP regulations is the revocation of
certain privileges, not the loss of good time credits. As appellant failed to timely raise
these arguments, they are waived. United Parcel Service v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters,
Local No. 430, 55 F.3d 138, 140 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1995).
3