Kareem Millhouse v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 685 F. App'x 156

On Dec. 14, 2013, BOP staff found an orange bag with homemade intoxicants in Millhouse’s cell; an Alcosensor test indicated the liquid was intoxicating. An incident report was written and Millhouse acknowledged the report as correct.
The incident was referred from the investigator to the Unit Discipline Committee; Millhouse declined to make a statement at the UDC and was referred to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO).
Millhouse was notified of his rights, did not request a staff representative or witnesses at the initial notice, and later admitted possession of alcohol at the Jan. 8, 2014 DHO hearing.
DHO Lane found the charge supported by Millhouse’s admission and staff reports, revoked 40 days of good conduct time, and imposed loss of visiting and commissary privileges for 90 days; a written report was issued explaining the findings.
Millhouse filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition claiming due process violations; the District Court denied relief, and Millhouse appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHO proceedings violated procedural due process required for loss of good-time credits	Millhouse claimed he was precluded from appearing and denied due process protections	BOP/Respondent argued Millhouse received notice, opportunity to present evidence, and a written decision; he appeared and admitted guilt	Court held no due process violation: Millhouse had notice, opportunity, written findings, and his admission plus staff reports provided "some evidence" support
Whether evidence met Hill’s "some evidence" standard to support revocation of good time	Millhouse argued insufficient evidence; sought video review	Respondent relied on Millhouse’s admission and incident report/Alcosensor test as supporting evidence	Court held Hill satisfied: admission and staff reports constitute some evidence; Court need not independently weigh credibility or examine entire record
Whether Millhouse may raise a separate knife-related disciplinary challenge on appeal	Millhouse raised knife-incident issues in appellate brief	Respondent noted issue was not raised below and not the subject of the § 2241 petition	Court held the knife-related argument waived for failure to raise in District Court and for failing to brief the challenged DHO proceeding on appeal

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (§ 2241 proper vehicle for challenging disciplinary action that results in loss of good-time credits)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (minimum procedural protections for prisoners facing disciplinary sanctions)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (prison disciplinary findings must be supported by some evidence)
Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for § 2241 denials: de novo legal review, factual findings for clear error)
DIRECTV Inc. v. Seijas, 508 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2007) (issues not raised in district court are waived on appeal)
United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) (failure to identify or argue an issue in opening brief constitutes waiver)