449 F. App'x 232
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Bullard, a prisoner at MDC Brooklyn, is serving a 240-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base.
- On July 27, 2010, Bullard placed a letter with romantic content under a unit officers’ door and was charged with making sexual proposals or threats.
- A UDC referred the matter to a DHO, which reinvestigated and rewritten the incident report to include Bullard’s letter.
- The DHO found Bullard violated Code 299 (disruption) and most resembling Code 206 (sexual proposals) and imposed sanctions including 15 days’ disciplinary segregation, loss of commissary and TRU LINKS privileges, and 27 days of good-conduct time.
- Bullard challenged the disciplinary process via administrative appeals (untimely or inadequately supported), then filed a § 2241 petition alleging invalid regulations and due-process violations.
- The district court denied relief for failure to exhaust and on the merits; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding the petition lacked merit even if exhaustion was not complete.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of remedies required? | Bullard contends exhaustion was necessary. | Bullard failed to show proper exhaustion as to the administrative remedies. | Exhaustion not reached; petition lacking merit on the merits. |
| Due-process protections in disciplinary proceedings satisfied? | DHO procedures violated Wolff protections. | Procedural requirements were met and any delay prejudicial? not established. | Wolff requirements satisfied; no prejudice shown. |
| Impact of delay in UDC hearing on due process? | Delay violated three-day requirement for initial hearing. | Delay allowed for good cause and reinvestigation; not a due-process violation. | No due-process violation; delay not prejudicial. |
| Whether the regulations creating disciplinary procedures confer a liberty or property interest? | Regulations themselves infringe rights. | Regulations do not by themselves create a substantive liberty interest. | Regulations did not create a cognizable liberty interest under Sandin. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process protections in disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (minimum Wolff requirements for disciplinary hearings)
- Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396 (3d Cir. 1991) (liberty interest in good-time credit; due process protections)
- Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2003) (prejudice required to establish due process violation in absence of regulatory citation)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (no liberty interest in the absence of protected status; focus on prejudice)