Opinion
Civil Action No.: 3:18-CV-201
10-29-2019
TODD MORRIS, Petitioner, v. FREDERICK ENTZEL, Respondent.
(GROH)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 17, 2018, Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at Hazelton FCI, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On August 7, 2019, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss and memorandum in support thereof with exhibits attached thereto. ECF Nos. 13, 14, 14-1. A Roseboro notice was issued August 8, 2019, however, Petitioner has not filed a response thereto. ECF No. 15.
All ECF numbers cited herein are from the instant case, 3:18-CV-201, unless otherwise noted.
The matter is now before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR PL P 2. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Prison Disciplinary Proceedings
Petitioner, Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate number 24388-016, is currently incarcerated at Hazelton FCI serving a life sentence following his conviction for first degree murder in the District of Columbia Superior Court case number 2001 FEL 001282. https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.7.1?x=DxFFvnnIJEEtYvu6Jl*umqVz*lZ50sWRq2p0EiDFzI54-uBNFEZkBOmAi*chAV13rKxvbF4aM*hhAspfpFnh6g
On June 22, 2018, while Petitioner was incarcerated at Hazelton FCI, he was charged in incident report number 3137834, with "possession of drugs", in violation of Code 113. ECF No. 14-1 at 2. The Discipline Hearing Officer who conducted the hearings filed a declaration as part of Respondent's motion. ECF No. 14-1. Petitioner was found guilty of the violation at a hearing conducted on July 26, 2018. Id. at 2. As a result of his conviction, Petitioner was sanctioned to one day of disciplinary segregation, 15 days of disciplinary segregated suspended pending 180 days of clear conduct, 180 days loss of commissary, 180 days loss of email and 180 days loss of phone. Id. Upon administrative review, incident report number 3137834 was remanded to the institution for rehearing, which was conducted on July 2, 2019. At that rehearing, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding, and the incident report was expunged. Id. The DHO declared that he "reviewed Petitioner's custody classification after the expungement. . . and found the expungement did not change his custody classification." Id.
B. Instant § 2241 Petition
As his sole ground for relief, Petitioner claims that BOP staff failed to timely provide him with a copy of his Discipline Hearing Officer ("DHO") report, which failure he alleges violated his due process rights. ECF No. 1 at 5. In his petition, Petitioner did not indicate whether he had presented or exhausted his claims through the prison's internal grievance procedure, although he later stated that staff actions prevented him from pursuing any administrative remedies. ECF No. 1 at 7 - 8. Petitioner requests his conviction for violation of Code 113 be vacated and expunged from his central file, and that his custody level score be recalculated. Id. at 8.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on August 7, 2019, which asserted that Petitioner had received the relief requested in his petition, and that accordingly, the matter was moot. ECF No. 13. Although Petitioner was advised of his right to file a response via the Roseboro notice filed August 8, 2019, for which service was accepted on August 12, 2019, Petitioner has not filed any further pleadings. ECF No. 15.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Review of Petitions for Relief
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's local rules, this Court is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. This Court is charged with screening Petitioner's case to determine if "it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief." Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.
B. Pro Se Litigants.
Courts must read pro se allegations in a liberal fashion and hold those pro se pleadings "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court is required to perform a judicial review of certain suits brought by prisoners and must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded by statute). The Supreme Court in Neitzke recognized that:
Section 1915(d) is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. To this end, the statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.490 U.S. at 327.
The version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) which was effective when Neitzke was decided provided, "The court may request an attorney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel and may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." As of April 26, 1996, the statute was revised and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) now provides, "On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
C. Habeas Corpus Petitions Filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
A petition filed pursuant to § 2241 is the appropriate method to challenge a due process violation as part of a prison disciplinary proceeding. Burgess v. Dunbar, 628 Fed. Appx. 175 (4th Cir. 2015). An inmate who is subject to a disciplinary conviction which results in a loss of good-conduct credit is entitled to the following for the minimum requirements of procedural due process:
1. giving the prisoner written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours before he appears for his disciplinary hearing;Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, at 564-566, 570-571; Burgess, 628 Fed. Appx. at 176 (quoting Wolff).
2. providing the prisoner a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action;
3. allowing the prisoner to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals;
4. if the prisoner is illiterate or the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely that the prisoner will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case, permitting the prisoner the aid of a fellow prisoner, or if that is forbidden, aid from staff or a sufficiently competent inmate designated by staff; and
5. providing impartial factfinders.
D. Motions to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a case when a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only, "'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Courts long have cited, "the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and therefore the Court must liberally construe his pleadings. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 - 1 (1972) (per curiam); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation in pleading, "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do...." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Accordingly, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," to one that is "plausible on its face." Id. at 555, 570. In Twombly, the Supreme Court found that, "because the plaintiffs [ ] have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed." Id. at 570. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state a plausible claim in his complaint which is based on cognizable legal authority and includes more than conclusory or speculative factual allegations.
"[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice," because courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Id. at 678. "[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must offer more than, "a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," in order to meet the plausibility standard and survive dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. at 678.
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952.
ANALYSIS
Although the Court recognizes that § 2241 is the proper vehicle to challenge due process claims related to prison disciplinary proceedings, it appears this case has become moot during its pendency. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner bringing an action with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or any other federal law, must first exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "Federal prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petitions. Failure to exhaust may only be excused upon a showing of cause and prejudice." McClung v. Shearin, 90 F. App'x 444, 445 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634-35 (2d Cir.2001), Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-54 (6th Cir.1981)). Exhaustion as provided in § 1997e(a) is mandatory, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Because exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit, all available administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint in federal court. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 741). "Those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Porter, 534 U.S. at 524.
As recognized in Carmona, supra, which was cited by the Fourth Circuit in its opinion in McClung:
[T]he interests of judicial economy and accuracy are served by requiring that, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, appeals proceed in the first instance through the federal agency review process. Following the administrative procedures could potentially obviate the need for judicial review, or at a minimum, develop the factual record at the agency level at a time when the disputed events are still relatively fresh in witnesses' minds. In this sense, it is the analogue of the exhaustion of state remedies requirement for a state prisoner seeking federal habeas review, and the results governing failure to take this path should be the same.Carmona, 243 F.3d at 634 (internal citations omitted).
Administrative autonomy is also served by requiring that a federal prisoner justify his failure to exhaust his intra-Bureau remedies. When, however, legitimate circumstances beyond the prisoner's control preclude him from fully pursuing his administrative remedies, the standard we adopt excuses this failure to exhaust.
This case demonstrates why exhaustion is mandated prior to filing suit. At a rehearing on July 2, 2019, Petitioner was granted the relief he sought in the instant case. Respondent seeks to dismiss this case because there is no longer a case and controversy. ECF No. 13.
Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases or controversies. "[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, (1969). Here, the issues presented are no longer live because Petitioner has already received the relief sought in the instant case.
Accordingly, dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Further, to the extent that Petitioner alleges that the BOP improperly changed his custody level classification, the same is not cognizable in a habeas petition. A federal prisoner has no constitutional right to a specific custodial security classification. Moody v. Daggert, 429 U.S. 78, 88, n 9 (1978). An inmate's classification is administrative and prison officials can change an inmate's security classification "for almost any reason or no reason at all." Brown v. Ratledge, No. 7-16-CV-00303, 2017 WL 4404248, at *7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017, aff'd, 709 F. Appx. 215 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citations omitted). Moreover, the DHO has filed a declaration that the expungement of the incident report in question did not affect Petitioner's security classification.
V. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] be DENIED and that the § 2241 proceeding be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This Court also RECOMMENDS that Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as Moot" [ECF No. 13] be GRANTED.
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation, any party may file with the Clerk of the Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the Honorable Gina M. Groh, Chief United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitation, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
This Report and Recommendation completes the referral from the district court. The Clerk is directed to terminate the Magistrate Judge's association with this case.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet, and to all counsel of record, as applicable, as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
DATED: October 29, 2019
/s/_________
ROBERT W. TRUMBLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE