649 F. App'x 730
11th Cir.2016Background
- Charles Anderson, Jr., a federal prisoner, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to expunge a disciplinary report and restore revoked good-conduct time after a prison fight finding.
- He was disciplined after a DHO (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) found he fought with another inmate; the incident report included a staff statement describing punches exchanged.
- Anderson alleged (1) insufficient evidence to support the fighting charge, (2) a due-process violation for failure to provide video of the incident, and (3) denial of his right to call two inmate witnesses because the DHO hearing was delayed/timely unavailable.
- The record showed Anderson received notice of the DHO hearing more than 24 hours in advance, a written DHO report explaining the evidence, and an opportunity to present documentary evidence.
- The BOP could not produce the requested video because none existed; one requested witness had been released and the other could not be located despite BOP efforts; Anderson initially waived witnesses until he learned no video existed.
- The district court denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial de novo as to law and for clear error as to factual findings and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for fighting finding | Anderson: no evidence supports guilty finding | BOP: staff incident report shows punches exchanged, supplying some evidence | Court: Affirmed; staff report is "some evidence" supporting finding |
| Denial of video evidence | Anderson: due-process violation because BOP failed to produce video | BOP: video does not exist; nothing to produce | Court: No due-process violation; record shows no video exists |
| Denial of witness testimony | Anderson: two inmate witnesses would exonerate him; BOP failed to secure them | BOP: one released, one unlocatable; Anderson initially waived witnesses | Court: No violation; factual findings that witnesses unavailable and waiver occurred not clearly erroneous |
| Procedural due process (Wolff requirements) | Anderson: DHO proceedings failed to meet due-process standards | BOP: provided >24 hours notice, written findings, chance to present evidence | Court: Procedures satisfied Wolff; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (establishes minimum due-process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (affirmed "some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings affecting good-time credits)
- Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for § 2241 denial described)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015) (administrative exhaustion is not jurisdictional in § 2241 proceedings)