Torres v. Hemingway

Full title: SAMUEL TORRES, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Apr 7, 2023

22-cv-12137 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2023)

Opinion

22-cv-12137

04-07-2023

SAMUEL TORRES, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, Defendant.

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 13)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Petitioner Samuel Torres is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Milan, Michigan. On September 9, 2022, Torres filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his § 2244 petition, Torres sought relief from a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) decision finding Torres guilty of drug possession and deducting good-time credits that he had earned. Torres challenged the BOP decision on both evidentiary and procedural grounds, arguing that he was “actually innocent of the charged conduct” and that he was entitled to relief based on “multiple prejudicial violations of due process” that tainted his disciplinary proceedings. (See Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6-7.)

On March 20, 2023, the Court entered an order denying Torres' § 2241 petition for habeas relief. (See Order, ECF No. 11.) Torres has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (See Mot., ECF No. 13.) In that motion, he asserts that his § 2241 petition raised “two claims that were not considered or analyzed in the Court's decision.” (Id., PageID.149.) According to Torres, the Court failed to consider: 1) Torres' contention that the BOP decision was based on insufficient evidence; and 2) Torres' contention that there was no evidence that he acted with the mens rea necessary to sustain his disciplinary conviction. (See id.) The Court disagrees.

The Court did not overlook the arguments identified by Torres. Both of those arguments challenge the sufficiency of the evidence - albeit in different respects -and the Court specifically concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to sustain Torres' disciplinary conviction.” (See Order, ECF No. 11, PageID.141.) The Court also offered additional analysis. To be clear, the Court finds no merit in any of Torres' claims that the evidence against him was in any respect insufficient to support the BOP's decision and actions against him.

Accordingly, Torres' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.