Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02541-BNB.
February 22, 2007
ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
Applicant Fidel Enrique Ruelas is a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) who currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Ruelas has filed pro se an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). He has paid the $5.00 filing fee.
The Court must construe the application liberally because Mr. Ruelas is representing himself. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the action.
Mr. Ruelas is challenging a prison disciplinary conviction and the resulting loss of good-conduct-time credits. He alleges that he was charged with assaulting any person with serious injury (aiding), a code 101(A) violation. He further alleges that a hearing was held on January 24, 2006, and that on February 22, 2006, he was convicted as charged. He was sanctioned by the loss of forty-one days of good-conduct-time credits, sixty days of disciplinary segregation, and the loss of ninety days of commissary, telephone, and visiting. He contends that the disciplinary hearing officer's finding of guilty was not support by at least some evidence. As relief Mr. Ruelas seeks to have expunged the incident reports and to have restored his lost good-conduct-time credits, as well as his commissary, telephone, and visiting privileges.
As a federal prisoner, Mr. Ruelas has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his earned, good-conduct-time credits. See Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1494 (10th Cir. 1987). Therefore, he was entitled to due process at the disciplinary hearings. However, "[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Instead, adequate due process at a prison disciplinary hearing requires only that a prisoner be provided with advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense if doing so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals, and a written statement by the factfinders of the reasons for the decision and the evidence on which they relied. See id. at 563-66; Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 1990). There also must be some evidence to support a disciplinary conviction. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1445 (10th Cir. 1996).
Mr. Ruelas does not contend that he was denied advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, or a written statement by the discipline hearing officer (DHO) explaining his decisions and the evidence upon which he relied. He only contends that there was a lack of some evidence to support the disciplinary conviction.
"Ascertaining whether [the some evidence] standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56; see Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445. The disciplinary decision will be upheld even if the evidence supporting the decision is "meager." Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445.
Contrary to Mr. Ruelas' claim that the DHO's guilty finding is not supported by at least some evidence, the Court finds that there was some evidence to support the conviction. In the incident report that Mr. Ruelas has attached to the application, the description of the incident reads as follows:
On November 7, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m., upon conclusion of an SIS investigation, it was determined that on September 24, 2005, at approximately 6:01 p.m., you assaulted inmate Rekshynski, Tyrone as he entered your cell (Cell 508) in the Otero Alpha Unit. Specifically, it has been determined that you struck him in the facial area with your fists. This statement is corroborated by camera surveillance, and the injuries sustained by inmate Reksynski [sic] consisting of a hematoma to the right side of his head, a large contusion with bruising to the right temple, the right eye was swollen with blood in the corner, multiple contusions to the forehead, six superficial puncture wounds across the left back, a deep scratch to the right chest, and abrasions to the right shoulder. Inmate Reksynski [sic] was subsequently transported via government vehicle to a local hospital where it was admitted. During an interview, you would neither admit or deny being involved in a physical altercation with him, however, made the comment, "We took the trash out." During this altercation, you did not sustain any injuries, however, inmate Reksynski's [sic] injuries are consistent with those sustained by individuals who have been involved in a physical altercation.
Application at attached incident report.
Furthermore, section V of the DHO report attached to the application notes that the specific evidence relied upon to support the DHO's findings is as follows:
The reporting officer's documented account that on 11-7-05 at approximately 8:00 a.m. an SIS investigation concluded you were involved in the assault on inmate Rekshynski as he entered cell 508 on 9-24-05 at approximately 6:01 p.m. A review of the cameras in Otero Alpha Unit determined the following: Inmate Rekshynski walks into Otero Alpha Unit and heads down range 3. He is observed entering cell 508 occupied by you. Other inmates converge on the cell and seriously assault him which requires his transport to an outside hospital for treatment. After the assault, you are observed departing cell 508 with another inmate and move towards the entranceway of the housing unit.
You made the following statement to the Investigating Lieutenant after being advised of your rights. Refused to participate.
You made the following statement to the Unit Discipline Committee after being advised of your rights. No comment.
You made the following statement before the DHO after a review of the case and your rights. I never said I took the trash out. It sounds like something out of a movie. I denied assaulting him. **Inmate also submitted written statements**
Based upon some facts annotated above (staff member written report and supporting documentation) the DHO concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of Code 101(A), Assault Any Person with Serious
Injury (Aiding). You deny assaulting the inmate and stated you did not make the statement, "We took the trash out." However, you were observed by staff on video tape of leaving your cell where the assault occurred immediately after the incident with another inmate who was determined to have been directly involved in the assault on inmate Rekshynski. While the DHO considered your denial, the facts presented clearly indicate your guilt in the offense. Therefore, the DHO found, based on the staff member's written statements and the supporting documentation, the greater weight of the evidence supported you did commit the prohibited act of Code 101(A).
Application at attached disciplinary hearing officer report at 2.
Plaintiff's only claim is that the DHO's guilty finding is not supported by at least some evidence. Clearly, the DHO report contains some evidence to support the DHO findings that Mr. Ruelas committed the prohibited act of assaulting any person with serious injury, a code 101(A) violation. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56; see also Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445. The Court finds that there is some evidence to support the DHO's decision. Plaintiff's due process claim, therefore, is without merit. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the habeas corpus application is denied, and the action is dismissed. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Respondent and against Applicant.