Mark Jacques v. Bureau of Prisons
632 F. App'x 225
5th Cir.2016Background
- Mark Jacques, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding via a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition claiming procedural due process violations.
- Jacques alleged prison officials violated a Bureau of Prisons rule requiring that an inmate ordinarily receive an incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of the inmate’s involvement; he instead received it in under 36 hours.
- As a result of the disciplinary proceeding, Jacques claimed he was placed in solitary confinement, prevented from seeking a transfer, and had commissary and visitation privileges suspended.
- The district court denied and dismissed Jacques’s habeas petition; he appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error and considered whether Jacques was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
- The court concluded Jacques failed to show a protected liberty interest was implicated or that any procedural-rule lapse caused prejudice to his due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide incident report within 24 hours violated procedural due process | Jacques: BOP rule §541.5(a) entitles him to the report within 24 hours; delayed report deprived him of due process | BOP: 24‑hour timeframe is an administrative guideline; constitutional minima were met and any delay caused no prejudice | Court: No due process violation—rule breach alone insufficient and Jacques showed no prejudice |
| Whether disciplinary sanctions implicated a protected liberty interest | Jacques: Solitary, loss of transfer opportunity, and suspended privileges implicate liberty interests | BOP: Placement and temporary loss of privileges do not create a constitutional liberty interest | Court: No protected liberty interest in particular facility; temporary commissary/visitation losses not protected |
| Whether strict compliance with BOP procedural timing is required for habeas relief | Jacques: Strict compliance required; the delay invalidates proceedings | BOP: Constitutional protections (Wolff minima) are dispositive; technical noncompliance without prejudice doesn't warrant relief | Court: Relief not available absent prejudice; constitutional requirements were met |
| Whether the record supports habeas relief | Jacques: Record shows rule violation and resulting harms | BOP: Record shows Jacques received notice and had opportunity to present defense; no resulting constitutional injury | Court: Affirmed denial—record does not show constitutional deficiency or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for district court findings on habeas appeals)
- Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2000) (district court denial may be affirmed on any record basis)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (protected liberty interests in prison context limited)
- Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2000) (no liberty interest in placement at a particular facility)
- Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 2000) (temporary loss of commissary privileges does not trigger due process)
- Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 1999) (no constitutional right to visitation privileges)
- Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989) (procedural rule violations do not automatically equal constitutional violations if minima met)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (constitutional procedural protections required in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Mackey v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, [citation="440 F. App'x 373"] (5th Cir. 2011) (no collateral relief for formal rule noncompliance absent prejudice)