Fulton v. Mejia
3:15-cv-03143
| N.D. Tex. | Aug 14, 2017Background
- Petitioner Kendrick Jermaine Fulton is a federal inmate (convicted of drug offenses, sentenced to 400 months) who filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging two BOP disciplinary actions.
- Incident Report No. 2663031 (Dec. 19, 2014, at FCI Seagoville): charged under BOP code 217 for receiving $250 in commissary funds from another inmate’s family; DHO found violation (code 328), disallowed/forfeited 14 days good conduct time, 30 days administrative segregation, and privileges suspended.
- Fulton requested an inmate witness (family sender’s inmate) by e-mail to the DHO; the DHO did not receive the e-mail and the record does not show Fulton asked for the witness at the hearing; Fulton submitted documentary evidence after the hearing.
- Incident Report No. 2671645 (Jan. 14, 2015, at FCI Bastrop): initially charged under code 296 for mail abuse; downgraded and remanded; UDC later found violation of code 305A (possessing/receiving unauthorized item) and imposed commissary/phone sanctions.
- Fulton exhausted BOP administrative remedies for both matters and asserted due process violations (denial of witnesses/evidence) and insufficiency of evidence; he seeks reinstatement of good conduct time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of right to call inmate witness (IR 2663031) | Fulton says he requested the inmate witness to show he didn’t know money was sent and that inmate obtained his info from clothing. | DHO contends he did not receive the e-mail and Fulton did not request the witness at hearing; DHO had inmate’s statement. | No due process violation; Fulton failed to show the absent witness’s testimony would likely change outcome. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for code 328 finding (IR 2663031) | Fulton argues no evidence he knew the inmate would have family send money. | Respondent relies on inmate statement, investigation report, and Fulton’s admission he was paid for legal work. | Some-evidence standard met; reporting staff’s report and other evidence support the finding. |
| Due process claim for mail-related charge (IR 2671645) | Fulton claims denial of opportunity to present witnesses/evidence and insufficient evidence for code 305A. | Respondent notes sanctions did not affect good conduct time; punishments were limited to commissary/phone and confinement decisions. | Habeas relief unavailable because sanctions did not implicate a protected liberty interest; petitioner not entitled to § 2241 relief for non-liberty sanctions. |
| Entitlement to habeas (general) | Fulton seeks reinstatement of good conduct time and relief from disciplinary findings. | Respondent argues procedural protections were satisfied and sanctions either had some-evidence support or did not implicate liberty interests. | Petition denied with prejudice; relief not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Joslin, 501 F.3d 415 (5th Cir.) (standard for liberty interest in prison disciplinary context)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest requires atypical and significant hardship)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (inmate procedural due process protections at disciplinary hearings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings)
- Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539 (5th Cir.) (review standard—arbitrary and capricious)
- Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534 (5th Cir.) (incident report alone can satisfy some-evidence standard)
- Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232 (5th Cir.) (review standard for prison disciplinary actions)
- Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir.) (habeas relief requires deprivation of a federal right)
- Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29 (5th Cir.) (same)
- Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818 (5th Cir.) (limits habeas for challenges to conditions that do not affect release)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (objection requirements to magistrate judge recommendations)