Swindle v. Ma'at

Case: 21-30371 Document: 00516103943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 22, 2021
No. 21-30371 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Adam Shane Swindle,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
S. Ma'at,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:21-CV-400
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Adam Shane Swindle, federal prisoner # 32320-001, filed a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition challenging his disciplinary conviction for attempted mail
abuse and the resulting loss of good time credits. The Disciplinary Hearing
Officer (DHO) found that Swindle attempted to have Cellmate and Convict
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30371 Document: 00516103943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 21-30371
Services send an item to an address in Alabama instead of to his prison
address, which would have circumvented the prison’s mail monitoring
procedures. The district court concluded that the prison disciplinary
procedures afforded Swindle due process and that some evidence supported
the conviction. On appeal, Swindle argues that there was no evidence in the
record to support a finding that he committed attempted mail abuse.
“[P]rison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned only where
there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison
officials.” Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). We review
de novo whether there is “some evidence” in the record to support the
decision. Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2007). Here,
Swindle does not dispute that he attempted to have an item sent to a non-
prison address, and he admitted that conduct during the hearing before the
DHO. Therefore, there was “some evidence in the record to support the
disciplinary decision.” Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874, 876 (5th
Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 28 C.F.R.
§ 541.3 (Table 1).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2