Heiting v. Paul, Warden
5:25-cv-00123
| E.D. Ky. | Jul 17, 2025Background
- Kevin Christopher Heiting, a federal inmate serving a 20-year sentence for distributing child pornography, is subject to computer restrictions while incarcerated.
- Heiting was found to have improperly used prison computers to send emails to an unmonitored staff inbox, essentially using the system as a word processor to print correspondence containing computer programming codes for mailing outside prison.
- The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) charged Heiting with violating Disciplinary Code 296, which prohibits misuse of mail to evade prison monitoring, and imposed sanctions including forfeiture of 27 days of good conduct time.
- After an initial disciplinary hearing and administrative appeal resulted in remand, a second hearing was held where Heiting had a staff representative, but waived witness testimony.
- The second disciplinary hearing officer again found Heiting guilty and imposed the same sanctions, prompting Heiting to file for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing his due process rights were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heiting was denied due process in the sanction | Heiting claims procedural and impartiality violations | BOP asserts all due process protections were provided | No due process violation; petition denied |
| Whether the hearing officer was impartial | Officer referenced prior conviction, shows bias | Officer gave context for restrictions, not bias | No evidence of bias by officer |
| Whether sufficient evidence supports the sanctions | Lack of credible evidence for sanction imposed | Evidence (reports and Heiting's statements) supports decision | Sufficient evidence existed |
| Whether restoration of good conduct time was required | Sanctions violated rights, should be reversed | Sanctions valid under prison policy and facts | No restoration; sanction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (sets out procedural due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (“some evidence” standard for reviewing prison disciplinary findings)
- Selby v. Caruso, 734 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2013) (applies “some evidence” standard in prison discipline context)
- Higgs v. Bland, 888 F.2d 443 (6th Cir. 1989) (clarifies low threshold for evidentiary support in disciplinary hearings)