Opinion
3:22-cv-00575-JE
11-01-2022
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI, Petitioner, v. DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN JELDERKS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Muhammad Siddiqi (“Petitioner”) brings this federal habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner alleges that his right to due process was violated during a prison disciplinary hearing. See generally, Pet. (ECF No. 1). For the reasons that follow, the Petition should be denied.
BACKGROUND
On the morning of January 15, 2021, Officer Garcia was working in the F-Unit of the Federal Correctional Institution in Sheridan. Hernandez Deck, Ex. B at 1 (ECF No. 4-3). Garcia observed Petitioner unplug an item by the microwave and place it in his pocket. Id. She ordered Petitioner to step outside for a pat-down. Id., Instead, Petitioner walked away from Garcia and placed the item into another inmate's folded arms. Id. Garcia confiscated the item, which was a smart phone with a small charging cord. Id.
Petitioner states he was immediately sent to the Special Housing Unit and was interrogated by officers. Pet. at 2. He alleges that he was encouraged to tell officers where the phone came from and to whom it belonged, and, if he complied, he would be released back to general population immediately. Id. He declined and was written up and issued a disciplinary report for possession of a hazardous tool (smart phone), dated January 15, 2021. Hernandez Deci., Ex. B. The report was “suspended on January 15, 2021 and referred out to the local Sheriffs Department for possible outside prosecution,” and was returned as declined on February 1, 2021. Hernandez Deci., Ex. C (ECF No. 4-4). Plaintiff states he was formally served with the report for the first time on February 1, 2021. Pet. at 2.
Petitioner states that he was not read his rights. Pet. at 2. Respondent contends Petitioner was advised of his right to remain silent and made the following statement: “No it is not correct the time is wrong it all happened at 6:35 a.m. and all I can say is to watch the cameras.” Hernandez Deci., Ex. B at 2.
On February 2, 2021, Petitioner twice sent a cop-out about the delay in receiving the incident report. Pet. at 2, Ex. 2, 3. The first response stated “[t]he incident report you received was suspended for outside prosecution and delivered to you once the local sherriff [sic] dept, decided whether or not to prosecute,” and that Petitioner would receive a memo from the Warden about the delay. Pet. at 2, Ex. 2. The second response stated “I cannot comment on this matter. You will need to state your case to the [Unit Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”)] and [Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”)].” Pet. at 2-3, Ex. 3. On February 8, 2021, Petitioner filed an informal resolution form about the delay. Pet. at 3, Ex. 4. Petitioner received a memo dated the same day, stating that the delay was approved by the Warden and “did not affect [Petitioner's] due process.” Hernandez Deci., Ex. C at 2.
Petitioner appeared before the UDC at an initial hearing on February 8,2021. Resp. to Pet. at 3 (ECF No. 4). At the hearing, Petitioner said that the camera footage of the housing cell should be checked prior to issuing a decision, Hernandez Deel., Ex. B at 1. The charges were referred to the Disciplinary Hearing Administrator for further hearing. Resp. to Pet. at 3.
Petitioner appeared before DHO Nichols on March 30, 2021. Hernandez Deel., Ex. E at 1 (ECF No. 4~6). Petitioner waived his rights to a staff representative and to call witnesses. Id. At the hearing, Petitioner denied the charges, stated “the report is not true,” denied being around the micro wave area, denied possessing or placing the phone in another inmate's arms, denied being ordered to exit the cell and stated that the time in the report was wrong. Id. Petitioner stated that the video footage of the incident should be checked. Id. Petitioner was also “concerned with the way in which the investigation was being conducted,” including “why [he] was being questioned by Institutional Staff if there was an ongoing ‘outside agency' investigation being conducted by the local Sheriffs Department.” Pet. at 3.
DHO Nichols found Petitioner committed the act as charged. Hernandez Deci., Ex. E at 2. In making her finding, DHO Nichols specifically relied upon Garcia's written testimony, the incident report, Petitioner's “statements to the investigator, the UDC and to the DHO, photographic evidence, memorandum from Officer J. Ruiz dated 1/15/21, memorandum for outside referral for prosecution and [Petitioner's] attached Inmate Rights and Notice of Discipline Hearing before the DHO.” Id. at 2. As to Petitioner's statement that video footage be checked, DHO Nichols noted that “there was no video surveillance inside of F-Unit cell F-2 prior to Inmates being housed there and that video surveillance was not installed until as recent as late February 2021.” Id. at 2-3. She found that the absence of video footage “bares no weight as a defense to [Petitioner's] claim and request that the DHO review video to defend against the written testimony.” Id. at 3. DHO Nichols stated that “the delay of the incident report was approved by the Warden and did not affect [Petitioner's] due process.” Id. at 2.
DHO Nichols sanctioned Petitioner with a loss of 41 days of good conduct time, and 90 days loss of commissary, telephone, and visiting privileges. Id. Petitioner was provided a copy of his disciplinary hearing report and was advised of his appellate rights. Id., Petitioner appealed the decision to the Western Regional Office and to the Central Office, which were each denied. Hernandez Deci, at 5 (ECF No. 4-1).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner alleges his due process rights were violated because prison policies were not followed in his disciplinary proceedings. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that he was not given a copy of the incident report until February 1, 2021, and he was improperly questioned about the incident while the investigation was referred for outside prosecution. Pet. at 4. Respondent contends that Petitioner received due process in the disciplinary hearing and DHO Nichols' determination is properly supported by sufficient evidence. Resp. to Pet. at 6- 8. Respondent asserts that Petitioner was timely provided with a copy of the report on January 15, 2021, and that questioning him about the incident while the disciplinary proceedings were pending did not violate his due process rights. Id. at 8.
Due process in prison disciplinary hearings requires prison officials to: (1) provide advance written notice of the disciplinary violation; (2) provide a written statement by an impartial factfinder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action; and (3) allow the charged inmate an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when allowing him to do so “will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that due process “requires only that there be some evidence to support the findings made in the disciplinary hearing.” Superintendent, Massachusetts Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985).
Here, Petitioner received advance written formal notice of the disciplinary violation, had an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense at the disciplinary hearing, which he waived, and was provided a copy of DHO Nichols' written decision including evidence she relied upon and reasons for the disciplinary action. DHO Nichols was an impartial factfinder who had no personal involvement in Petitioner's case. Regarding any alleged delay in receiving Petitioner's incident report in violation of prison regulations or the fact that the disciplinary hearing was delayed, any such delay by itself does not violate due process. Rodriguez v. Winn, No. CV142139TUCJASJR, 2016 WL 3353954, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Rodriguez v. Shartle, No. 414CV2139TUCJAS, 2016 WL 3194653 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2016) (citing Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016)). As to Petitioner's argument that officers allegedly violated prison policy by interviewing him while the investigation was suspended, “a violation of a [Bureau of Prison] regulation, without more, does not rise to the level of a due process violation. Armstrong v. Warden of USP Atwater, No. 1:10-CV-173 DLB HC, 2011 WL 2553266, at *8 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2011), affd, 468 Fed.Appx. 786 (9th Cir. 2012).
The Court notes that Respondent contends that Petitioner was timely provided a copy of his incident report on January 15, 2021. Resp. to Pet. at 3.
The delay in holding disciplinary proceedings was approved by the Warden. Hernandez Deci., Ex. C at 2.
DHO Nichols' decision was also supported by sufficient evidence. She relied upon written first-hand testimony from Officer Garcia, the incident report, Petitioner's own statements, photographic evidence, memorandum from another officer who witnessed the events, memorandum regarding the outside referral for prosecution and Petitioner's attached Inmate Rights and Notice of Discipline Hearing. Hernandez Deci., Ex. E at 2. DHO Nichols noted that “there was no video surveillance inside of F-Unit cell F-2 prior to Inmates being housed there and that video surveillance was not installed until as recent as late February 2021.” Id. at 2-3. She found that the absence of video footage “bares no weight as a defense to [Petitioner's] claim and request that the DHO review video to defend against the written testimony.” Id. at 3. Thus, to the extent that Petitioner brings a substantive due process claim, it also fails because there was a clear evidentiary basis for the disciplinary decision. Habeas corpus relief should therefore be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons identified above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) should be denied and a judgment should be entered dismissing this case with prejudice. The Court should deny a Certificate of Appealability in this case.
SCHEDULING ORDER
This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due within 17 days. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.