Lane v. Maye
664 F. App'x 725
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mark Alan Lane, a federal prisoner, sent an August 31, 2015 letter to an AUSA that SIS interpreted as threatening/extortionate; he was initially charged under BOP Code 203 (threatening).
- At a September 14 disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer continued the matter and instructed the reporting lieutenant to rewrite the report; the charge was changed to Code 204 (extortion) and Lane was given the amended report on September 15.
- A September 22 hearing proceeded on the Code 204 extortion charge; Lane called one witness (Ms. Feger) and sought to call Lieutenant Raup and Warden Perdue but contends the officer denied those requests.
- The disciplinary officer found Lane guilty of Code 204 and revoked good-time credits; Lane challenged the hearing in a § 2241 habeas petition in the District of Kansas.
- Lane argued (1) insufficient evidence to support a guilty finding (claim framed around Code 203 initially) and (2) denial of due process by refusing to allow the proffered witnesses; he also moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The district court denied relief and denial of ifp; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Lane's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for disciplinary conviction | Officer lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty (challenged Code 203 finding and related procedures) | The hearing officer’s findings and written statement provided "some evidence" supporting the conviction (Code 204) | Affirmed — some evidence supported the guilty finding for Code 204; no relief granted |
| Denial of requested witnesses at disciplinary hearing | Denial of testimony from Lt. Raup and Warden Perdue violated due process | Any denial was harmless because the proffered testimony was irrelevant to the Code 204 extortion charge based on the 2015 letter | Affirmed — even if improperly denied, exclusion was harmless error |
| Right to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal | Lane sought ifp status | Government opposed based on ability to pay | Denied — Lane failed to show financial inability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir.) (distinguishes § 2241 as attacking execution of sentence)
- Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 2241 appeals)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (§ 2241 restores good-time credits lost from defective disciplinary proceedings)
- Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1987) (procedural due process required when good-time credits are at stake)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (minimum procedural protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (revocation of good time must be supported by some evidence)
- Grossman v. Bruce, 447 F.3d 801 (10th Cir. 2006) (denial of witness testimony in prison hearings reviewed for harmless error)