Miley v. Warden, FCI Beaumont Low
1:22-cv-00243
E.D. Tex.Jul 7, 2023Background:
- On Sept. 29, 2021, staff found a salt shaker in Petitioner Benton Miley’s secured locker containing a bindle with a pink granular substance; NIK field tests gave a presumptive positive for methamphetamine.
- A DHO held a disciplinary hearing on Oct. 5, 2021; Miley acknowledged the salt shaker was his but gave no substantive defense and declined witnesses/staff rep; DHO relied on the incident report and NIK results.
- DHO found Miley guilty of Code 113 (possession of narcotics) and forfeited 41 days of good-conduct time.
- Miley sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing (inter alia) denial of independent retesting, failure to follow BOP investigatory policies (including contacting him and handling samples), denial of a staff representative, improper use of a confidential informant, and interference with administrative exhaustion.
- Respondent moved for summary judgment; the magistrate concluded there was “some evidence” supporting the finding (NIK results and location of the item), denied Miley’s claims on the merits, and recommended granting summary judgment and denying the petition.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to independent lab retest of substance | Miley: NIKs are unreliable; he asked for outside testing and was denied | BOP: No constitutional right to independent testing; NIKs provide sufficient evidence and independent testing would be administratively burdensome | Denied — NIK results constituted "some evidence"; no due-process right to independent lab testing (Henson) |
| Failure to follow BOP investigatory policies (contacting inmate, witnesses, urine handling) | Miley: Lt. Reyes failed to take his statement, allow witness requests, and follow sample-handling rules | BOP: Procedural rule breaches do not automatically equal a due-process violation when Wolff protections were provided | Denied — Miley received required Wolff protections; regulatory noncompliance alone did not violate due process |
| Denial of staff representative | Miley: Asked for case manager; DHO couldn’t reach him and hearing proceeded without rep | BOP: No constitutional right to counsel in disciplinary hearings; staff rep only required in limited circumstances | Denied — Miley was literate and issues were not complex, so no due-process violation |
| Use/disclosure of confidential informant | Miley: Search was based on an informant; he was entitled to information on informant reliability | BOP: DHO did not rely on informant; decision rested on NIK and where item was found | Denied — DHO relied on other evidence; informant disclosure not required (Broussard distinguishable) |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Miley: Staff interfered with his ability to exhaust | BOP: Petition should be dismissed if remedies not exhausted | Not reached as dispositive — court resolved merits against Miley and found no prejudice from any alleged interference |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prison disciplinary due-process minimums)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings)
- Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897 (5th Cir. 2000) (no constitutional right to independent drug testing after NIK positive)
- Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2001) (confidential-informant reliability required if board relies on informant tip)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard)
- Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060 (5th Cir. 1994) (federal habeas relief for disciplinary hearings only where no evidence supports the decision)
- Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1986) (federal courts won't reassess evidence credibility in disciplinary hearings)