Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-0173-Y.
July 21, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
B. PARTIES
Petitioner Rhonda Barrett, Reg. No. 05854-089, is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Medical Center-Carswell (FMC-Carswell) in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Respondent is Ginny Van Buren, Warden of FMC-Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By the instant habeas petition, Barrett challenges a disciplinary proceeding conducted at the FMC-Carswell, and the resultant loss of 27 days good conduct time, loss of telephone, commissary and visiting privileges, and 30 days disciplinary segregation. (Resp't Appendix, Exhibit E.) Barrett was charged by incident report dated January 24, 2003 with the institutional offense of assault on another inmate, a Code 224 violation. ( Id. Exhibit A.) In the report, the reporting officer, Lieutenant Sleigh, gave the following written description of the alleged violation:
On January 24, 2003 at approximately 2:30 p.m. and [sic] investigation was completed pertaining to an alleged assault that had occurred on January 17, 2003 on the recreation yard next to the recreation building. The investigation revealed that on January 17, 2003 inmate Rogers, Samantha # 09221-078 was walking off of the track when she passed two inmates standing by the recreation building. She observed one inmate pass what appeared to [be] pills to the other inmate, whom she knew went by the nickname of "Queen". As she was walking past the inmates, "Queen" came up behind her and grabbed her arm, swung her around to face her and proceeded to hit inmate Rogers in the left facial area with a closed fist. The inmate known as "Queen" also stated to inmate Rogers "This time I am gonna make sure you don't say anything." A medical assessment was conducted on inmate Rogers on January 22, 2003, and confirmed the injuries sustained were consistent with having been involved in an altercation. While housed in the Special Housing Unit, inmate Rogers was able to make a positive identification of inmate Barrett, Rhonda # 05854-089 as inmate Barrett was being escorted out of her cell for inventory of her property. On January 24, 2003 I was escorting inmate Barrett in Special Housing after interviewing her, and inmate Rogers later stated to me that she was absolutely positive that inmate Barrett was the individual who had assaulted her. ( Id. Exhibit A at 5.)
Barrett received a copy of the incident report on the January 24, 2003. ( Id.) Thereafter, she was advised of her rights in connection with the disciplinary proceeding on January 29, 2003, and she appeared for a disciplinary hearing before a disciplinary hearing officer on February 6, 2003. ( Id. Exhibits C E.) At the hearing, Barrett was represented by a staff representative. ( Id. Exhibit E at 15.) She denied the charges, and gave the following statement:
I do not know inmate Rodgers [sic]. She says the incident happened Friday, but she didn't report it for five days. There are three other people that go by the name "Queen". I've never worn braids. She said Queen wore braids. I've never worn braids. I was in aerobics. I was not on the track at all. I was not there. She either made a terrible mistake or someone put her up to this. I don't socialize with people who get in trouble. I've worked hard to stay out of trouble and to get my promotion in ADP. ( Id. at 16.)
Barrett also called three witnesses who corroborated her statement that she was in aerobics on the evening in question. ( Id. at 16.) In addition to the incident report and investigation, Barrett's statement, and the witness statements, the hearing officer considered the memorandums of Lieutenant Augustine, Lieutenant Sleigh and Senior Officer Gilbert pertaining to the incident, an "Inmate Injury Assessment and Followup" for Rogers, an "Inmate Request to Staff" form by Barrett, the aerobic sign-up sheet for the date in question, and photographs of Rogers's bruised face. ( Id. Exhibits A, B, E-K.) After reviewing the evidence, the hearing officer concluded that "based on the merits of the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., the written account of the reporting officer, supporting memorandums, injury report, and Rogers' positive identification of [Barrett]," Barrett committed the prohibited act. ( Id. Exhibit E at 7.)
Barrett pursued her administrative remedies to no avail. She first appealed the decision to the Regional Director, who denied the appeal on May 5, 2003. (Attachments to Federal Petition.) Barrett then appealed that denial to the Board of National Inmate Appeals. On September 9, 2003, the Administrator of the National Inmate Appeals denied the appeal. Thereafter, Barrett filed this habeas corpus petition. The respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting documentary exhibits, to which Barrett has not timely replied.
D. ISSUES
In her first ground, Barrett appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the disciplinary hearing officer's finding by way of asserting facts inconsistent with the finding. In her second ground, she contends the investigation was "very poor and unprofessional." (Petition at 4-6.)
E. DISCUSSION
The government moves for denial of the petition as a matter of law because "there is no genuine issue of material fact in that there is some evidence to support" the hearing officer's decision. (Resp't Mot. for Summary Judgment at 2; Resp't Brief in Support at 5-9.)
As previously noted, the court construes Barrett's first ground as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the hearing officer's decision. In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of good time credits, an inmate is entitled to minimum due process requirements, which include the requirement that there exist "some evidence" in support of the hearing officer's decision. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1986); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are overturned only where no evidence in the record supports the decision. See Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874, 877 (5th Cir. 2001). Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. The relevant inquiry is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary officer. Id. at 455-56.
It is the role of the disciplinary hearing officer to make determinations regarding matters of credibility and reliability of the evidence. Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 545-46 (5th Cir. 1981); Najjar v. Yusuff, 81 Fed. Appx. 815, 816, 2003 WL 22427949, at *1 (5th Cir. 2003). So long as the decision of the hearing officer is not arbitrary or capricious, a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the prison authorities. Steward v. Thigpen, 730 F.2d 1002, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1984). Here, it was within the discretion of the hearing officer to determine the believability of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence presented at the hearing and to resolve any inconsistencies therein. Babalais, 659 F.2d at 545. Because there was some evidence to support the finding, it does not appear that the disciplinary officer's decision was arbitrary or capricious. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564-66; McDuffie v. Estelle, 935 F.2d 682, 687-88 (5th Cir. 1991).
As for Barrett's claim that the investigation by prison staff "was very poor and unprofessional," she fails to raise a cognizable constitutional violation. The nature and extent of an investigation in a prison disciplinary proceeding is within the discretion of prison authorities.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is recommended that respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted to the extent that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until August 11, 2004. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh'g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).
IV. ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until August 11, 2004, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.