Edwin Jacquet v. Warden Fort Dix FCI, 707 F. App'x 124

Edwin Jacquet, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty to bank-fraud conspiracy and was sentenced to 63 months; earned a 12‑month RDAP reduction and ~172 days good‑time credit and was transferred to a halfway house after ~32 months.
While at the halfway house Jacquet ate breakfast biscuits containing poppy seeds brought by family, then tested positive for codeine and morphine on a urinalysis administered that night.
The halfway house issued an incident report, the Center Discipline Committee found Jacquet guilty, he was transferred to a detention center, his 12‑month sentence credit was revoked, and a hearing officer sanctioned him with an 85‑day loss of good time.
Jacquet sought hair‑follicle testing and administrative review without success, then filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging multiple due‑process violations and that poppy seeds caused a false positive.
The District Court denied relief and a Rule 59(e) motion; Jacquet appealed. The government waived exhaustion; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and consolidated appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Community Based Program Agreement is an unenforceable contract of adhesion	Jacquet: agreement is adhesive and unenforceable (first raised in Rule 59(e))	BOP: agreement governs transfer; Rule 59(e) is not the place to raise new claims	Court: claim waived by raising it first in Rule 59(e); District Court did not err in denying it
Whether Jacquet was improperly excluded from the disciplinary hearing, violating due process	Jacquet: he was not physically present and thus denied chance to testify and confront evidence	BOP: records show Jacquet’s initials on hearing report and prior filings never alleged exclusion; any absence caused no prejudice because BOP knew his defense	Court: vacated denial as to this claim; factual dispute about presence requires an evidentiary hearing; exclusion could be prejudicial given credibility importance
Whether BOP violated due process by denying Jacquet’s request to pay for hair testing	Jacquet: hair testing would distinguish poppy‑seed ingestion from narcotics use; denial prevented him from presenting key evidence	BOP: did not present justification in the record for denying access to hair testing	Court: vacated denial as to this claim and remanded for the District Court to determine whether legitimate penological reasons justified denial

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (inmates have due‑process rights to present documentary evidence when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (where credibility is central, written submissions are an unsatisfactory substitute for oral testimony)
Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1991) (district court must hold an evidentiary hearing when petitioner alleges facts that, if proven, would entitle relief)
Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 642 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2011) (prison officials’ discretion to deny evidence is limited; must evaluate legitimate penological reasons)
Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396 (3d Cir. 1991) (discussing limits on denial of inmate access to evidence)
Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008) (loss of good‑time credits may be challenged under § 2241)