Franklin v. Lucero, 1:18-cv-01156

Franklin, a New Mexico prisoner, was found guilty in a disciplinary hearing (Feb 22, 2017) of possessing escape paraphernalia and lost 90 days of earned good time.
He exhausted administrative remedies and pursued state habeas relief; state courts denied relief and Franklin filed a federal habeas petition construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Franklin alleges prison officials refused to produce or review video footage from the cell search that led to the misconduct report; he claims the video would show no search and no discovery of the documents.
Respondents offered no justification (e.g., safety or institutional concerns) for refusing video access and did not provide a summary or alternative evidence review.
The magistrate judge found a Wolff violation (denial of opportunity to present documentary evidence/witnesses), concluded the error was not harmless, recommended setting aside the disciplinary adjudication, remanding for a new Wolff-compliant hearing within 90 days, and restoring credits if no proper hearing is held.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether refusal to produce/review videotapes violated due process	Franklin: officials refused to review/produce videos; video would show no search and negate possession	Respondents: withholding is permissible; even if video absent, Franklin possessed security-sensitive documents so result stands	Violation found: unjustified refusal infringed Franklin's Wolff rights; videotape access was required or a substitute explanation/summary
Whether the constitutional error was harmless	Franklin: video likely would exonerate him; error contributed to sanction	Respondents: even if tape absent, possession of security-sensitive material supports sanctions (harmless)	Not harmless: court concluded it was not beyond reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to outcome; remand for new hearing
Whether the petition should be dismissed under abuse-of-the-writ doctrine	Franklin: did not abuse writ; this petition was filed before the later Franklin II petition and involved different facts/events	Respondents: petitions challenge related disciplinary matters arising in 2017 and thus amount to abuse	Abuse-of-the-writ rejected: petition was first in time and distinct from Franklin II; even if doctrine could apply, cause and prejudice shown (claims were separate and some claims not exhausted when filed)

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (establishes due process protections for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (requires statement of evidence and reasons for disciplinary actions)
Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808 (10th Cir.) (prisoners' right to evidence can be infringed when officials unjustifiably refuse video production)
Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir.) (§ 2241 petitions reviewed de novo)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error standard: conviction stands only if error did not contribute to result beyond a reasonable doubt)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard in constitutional context)
McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (abuse-of-the-writ doctrine described)
Daniels v. United States, 254 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.) (cause and prejudice standard for abuse-of-the-writ)
Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162 (10th Cir.) (petitioner must diligently investigate and include claims in first federal habeas petition)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (discusses prejudice standard in collateral attack contexts)
Hamm v. Saffle, 300 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (challenge to loss of good-time credits is a § 2241 execution-of-sentence claim)