United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Herndon United States District Judge.
currently incarcerated in U.S. Penitentiary Marion, brings
this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to challenge the loss of good conduct time based on
discipline he received at Federal Correctional Institution
Gilmer, in West Virginia. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2).
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives
this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
lost 41 days of good conduct time based on Incident Report
2502926, which charged him with a violation of Code 197,
“use of a telephone for an illegal purpose.”
(Doc. 1, p. 1).
subject events took place between March 21, 2012 and June 28,
2013, but Petitioner alleges that he was estopped from
availing himself of an administrative remedy prior to July
12, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The hearing on the October 10, 2013
disciplinary report took place on October 28, 2013. (Doc. 1,
p. 3). A written summary of the findings was generated on
November 5, 2013, but Petitioner alleges that he never got a
copy of the report, despite an allegedly false statement that
an officer attempted to deliver the report on November 15,
2013. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 16). On December 21, 2013, Petitioner
asked for a copy of the report so that he could appeal it,
but staff told him that his administrative appeal would be
untimely. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Based on that representation, and
because prison staff offered to restore Petitioner's
access to TRULINCS, Petitioner failed to file an appeal.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Petitioner did not then filed an
administrative appeal until July 12, 2017. Id.
alleges that his due process rights were violated when he was
deprived of his good conduct credit. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7).
petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 when challenging the fact or duration of a
prisoner's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973). A claim for restoration of
wrongfully revoked good conduct credit is properly brought in
a § 2241 action. Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841
(7th Cir. 2011); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079
(7th Cir. 1994).
alleges that he was not given due process when deprived of
his good conduct credit. In the context of a prison
disciplinary hearing, due process requires that the prisoner
receive: (1) written notice of the claimed violation at least
24 hours before hearing; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses
and present documentary evidence (when consistent with
institutional safety) to an impartial decision-maker; and (3)
a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied
on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. See
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007);
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). A
disciplinary decision must be supported by “some
evidence” to satisfy due process. Scruggs, 485
F.3d at 941 (quoting Superintendent v. Hill, 472
U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (revocation of good conduct credits must
be supported by “some evidence” in order to
satisfy due process concerns)); Austin v. Pazera,
779 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2015); Grandberry v. Smith,
754 F.3d 425, 426 (7th Cir. 2014).
request for restoration of good conduct credit is properly
raised in the habeas petition. Jones, 637 F.3d 841
(presenting due process claim); Waletzki, 13 F.3d
1079 (denial of good time credits lengthened sentence and
brought claim within ambit of § 2241). His claim of
specific due process violations in connection with
disciplinary charges and hearing are also properly addressed
in this habeas action.
possible that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies, but at the pleading stages, he has alleged that he
was prevented from doing so, and so the Court will leave this
issue for further development.
commenting on the merits of Petitioner's claims, the
Court concludes that the petition survives preliminary review
under Rule 4 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in United States District Courts.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the
§ 2241 petition (Doc. 1) or otherwise plead within
thirty days of the date this Order is entered. This
preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude
the Government from raising any objection or defense it may
wish to present. Service upon the United States Attorney for
the Southern ...