Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moon v. Walton

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 27, 2014

DARNELL W. MOON, Petitioner,
v.
J.S. WALTON, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

CLIFFORD J. PROUD, Magistrate Judge.

Darnell W. Moon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the loss of 14 days of good conduct credit imposed as a sanction pursuant to a prison disciplinary proceeding. (Doc. 1).[2]

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

Moon is serving an aggregate 92 month sentence for armed bank robbery, conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, and false claims to the Internal Revenue Service. His projected release date via good conduct credit is August 5, 2014. See, Doc. 16, Ex. A.

On July 9, 2012, a correctional officer at USP Marion concluded that Moon attempted to steal food items from the food service area based on his review of a videotape. He wrote an incident report. After holding a hearing, a Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) found Moon guilty of attempted stealing. The DHO's written report was dated December 10, 2012. Doc. 16, Ex. B.

Claims Raised in the Petition

Petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated in the following respects:

1. There was no evidence to support the DHO's finding of guilt, and the incident report was written to retaliate against Moon for filing complaints against staff.

Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies.

Applicable Legal Standards

Inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons can challenge the loss of good conduct credit by way of a petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Jackson v. Carlson , 707 F.2d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1983). However, before the Court can consider such a claim, petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies. Jackson , 707 F.2d at 949; Clemente v. Allen , 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997).

The exhaustion requirement in §2241 cases is not statutorily mandated, and is therefore not jurisdictional. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that there can be exceptions to the requirement, but "sound judicial discretion governs." Gonzalez v. O'Connell , 355 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has identified two purposes for the exhaustion requirement, i.e., protection of the agency's authority, and promotion of judicial economy. Id. , at 1017.

The Bureau of Prisons has created an Administrative Remedy Program which "allow[s] an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement." 28 C.F.R. §542.10(a). The Program is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.