Baker v. Bergami
3:23-cv-50028
| N.D. Ill. | May 14, 2025Background
- Marvin Baker, a federal inmate, was disciplined for allegedly fighting with another inmate at USP McCreary in March 2022, resulting in a loss of 27 days good conduct time and email privileges for three months.
- Correctional officer observed the fight, intervened with OC spray, and wrote an incident report accusing Baker of violating prison rules.
- After an initial prison disciplinary review, Baker's charge was automatically referred to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO), where Baker requested, but did not specifically name, witnesses and sought a staff representative.
- The DHO postponed the initial hearing for staff review of video footage, which was inconclusive; during follow-up hearings, Baker did not further pursue the presence of his staff representative.
- Baker appealed the disciplinary findings unsuccessfully at several levels within the Bureau of Prisons, failing to perfect his administrative appeals as required before filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Baker claimed he used all administrative remedies | Baker did not properly or timely exhaust appeals | Baker did not exhaust; petition denied |
| Denial of staff representative | Not provided staff rep at hearing, denied process | Baker had opportunity for staff rep (Clark); no constitutional right to rep | No due process right to staff rep; no violation |
| Improper UDC procedure | UDC hearing by one staff and in hallway violated handbook | Policy allows one staff for serious charges; no constitutional violation | UDC followed policy; no constitutional issue |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Denied fighting, claimed false report | Incident report and officer's statement suffice as evidence | "Some evidence" standard met; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (outlines due process requirements in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Superintendent, Massachusetts Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (disciplinary decision upheld if supported by "some evidence")
- Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2011) (prisoners have a liberty interest in good conduct time and can challenge via habeas)
- Jackson v. Carlson, 707 F.2d 943 (7th Cir. 1983) (prisoners may challenge loss of good conduct time through habeas corpus)
- Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2007) (supports "some evidence" standard in prison discipline)
- McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999) (incident report alone can provide some evidence for discipline)