Andrew Gross, III v. Warden Canaan USP, 17-2477

Andrew Gross, a federal prisoner, challenged prison disciplinary sanctions in a § 2241 habeas petition after sanctions for an attempted escape-related charge (based on altered court documents) resulted in loss of 55 days good conduct time and other restrictions.
The Regional Director administratively expunged two related charges but upheld the attempted-escape charge and its sanctions.
Gross also sought restoration of 54 days of good conduct time tied to a separate 2009 incident; the Regional Office had remanded that incident for re-investigation but Gross did not complete the Central Office appeal after two submissions were returned as illegible.
Gross alleged due-process violations: (1) delayed receipt of the incident report beyond 24 hours; (2) insufficient evidence to support the DHO finding; (3) denial of attendance at an alleged rehearing; (4) failure to restore good conduct time; and (5) improper custody classification.
The District Court denied habeas relief in part and dismissed other claims; the Third Circuit summarily affirmed, reviewing procedural-due-process issues de novo and factual findings for clear error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timely notice of charges (24‑hour rule)	Gross: incident report was provided >24 hours after incident; violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a) and Wolff notice requirement prejudiced defense	Bureau: regulation is policy (“ordinarily”); Wolff requires 24‑hour notice before hearing, not issuance within 24 hours; delay explained and Gross not prejudiced	Denied — no due process violation absent prejudice; Gross failed to show prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted escape (Code 102)	Gross: DHO finding not supported	Bureau: altered court documents and correspondence provided some evidence of attempt to fraudulently obtain early release	Denied — DHO finding supported by "some evidence" (Hill standard)
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies for restoration of 54 days GCT from 2009 incident	Gross: exhaustion excused as futile; Warden interfered with appeal	Bureau: administrative route not completed (no completed Central Office appeal); exhaustion required	Dismissed — Gross failed to exhaust and cannot show prejudice or futility that excuses exhaustion
Custody classification challenge	Gross: classification score elevated; seeks transfer and program removal	Bureau: classification is condition of confinement, not inconsistent with sentencing judgment	Not cognizable in § 2241 habeas; claim belongs in a civil (Bivens or § 1983-type) action

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (habeas proper for disciplinary actions resulting in loss of good-time credits)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (minimum due-process protections for prison disciplinary hearings)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings that revoke good time)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (deference to prison officials to maintain order and adopt policies)
Moscato v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757 (3d Cir. 1996) (administrative-exhaustion requirement for § 2241 petitions)
Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2003) (no due process violation without prejudice)
Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050 (3d Cir. 1981) (reasons exhaustion is favored)
McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933 (3d Cir. 2010) (habeas jurisdiction requires that relief would necessarily imply change to execution of sentence)
Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2012) (distinguishing habeas and civil claims where sentence judgment is unaffected)
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2002) (custody-classification/conditions of confinement claims belong in civil suit)