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.

Woolridgee v. Warden, FCI-Greenville

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 20, 2017

JOSHUA TODD WOOLRIDGE, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI-GREENVILLE, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Joshua Todd Woolridge filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241challenging the imposition of sanctions against him, including the loss of good conduct credit, pursuant to prison disciplinary proceedings. (Doc. 1).

         Relevant Facts and Procedural History§

         Petitioner was convicted in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri of failing to register as a sex offender. In March 2014, he was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. United States v. Woolridge, Case No. 13-cr-242-BP, Western District of Missouri.

         On January 4, 2015, when petitioner was assigned to FCI Greenville, a correctional officer wrote an incident report charging petitioner with possession of a weapon. This report was based on the presence of a homemade weapon behind the light above the sink in petitioner's cell. Petitioner and two other inmates shared that cell. A hearing was held on January 27, 2015, and petitioner was found guilty. As is relevant here, he was sanctioned with the loss of forty-one days of good conduct time. See, Doc. 1, pp. 9-11.[2]

         Woolridge filed an administrative remedy (grievance) and, as a result, the incident report was returned to the institution for reconsideration. Doc. 18, Ex. 2, p. 23.

         A new hearing was held in May 2015, and Woolridge was again found guilty and sanctioned with the loss of forty-one days of good conduct time. Woolridge was transferred to a halfway house sometime between the return of the incident report for reconsideration and the second hearing. Doc. 26, Ex. 1 & 2.

         Petitioner began serving his sentence of supervised release in October 2015. See, Doc. 27.

         Grounds for Habeas Relief

         In his habeas petition, Woolridge challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the January 2015 hearing. See, order on preliminary review, Doc. 6.

         Analysis

         The petition must be dismissed because it is moot.[3]

         Inmates retain due process rights in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings, but such 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, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975 (1974). The minimum requirements of due process in such proceedings are (1) receipt of written notice of the charges in advance of the hearing, (2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker, (3) the right to call witnesses and present evidence where same will not be unduly hazardous to safety or correctional goals, and (4) a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reason for the decision. Wolff, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-2980; Henderson v. U.S. Parole Commission, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1994).

         The findings of the disciplinary hearing officer must be supported by “some evidence in the record.” Superintendent v. Hill, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773 (1985). The evidence need not be sufficient to logically exclude any result except the one reached by the prison decision maker. Viens v. Daniels, 871 F.2d 1328, 1334-1335 (7th Cir. 1989). In addition, only evidence that was presented to the hearing officer is relevant to the ...


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.