558 F. App'x 158
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Bliss, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a 2012 disciplinary sanction at Allenwood.
- A DHO found Bliss violated Code 299 and imposed sanctions including 27 days disallowance of good conduct time and 60 days forfeiture of non-vested good conduct time.
- Bliss’s administrative appeals were unsuccessful.
- Bliss alleged the DHO was not impartial, denied him witness presentation, and that the decision was not supported by the evidence; he also claimed being placed in the hole hindered witness identification.
- The District Court denied relief on the merits on September 13, 2013, agreeing none of Bliss’s claims entitle relief and that the decision satisfied the some-evidence standard.
- Bliss appeals, and the panel affirms the District Court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DHO impartiality standard | Bliss asserts DHO was not impartial. | Govt. contends record shows impartial adjudication. | Impartiality not shown; affirmed. |
| Opportunity to present witnesses | Bliss claims he was denied opportunity to call witnesses. | DHO proceedings afforded due process under Wolff. | No due-process violation; some evidence supports decision. |
| Some evidence standard | Bliss contends the DHO’s decision lacked support in the record. | Record satisfied the some-evidence standard. | DHO’s decision supported by some evidence; no relief. |
| Waiver of the 'hole' witness issue | Bliss’s claim about witnesses identified while in the hole was not waived? | Issue waived under Skretvedt. | Waived; no relief even if considered. |
| Video footage/documentary evidence | Bliss argues video footage could affect outcome. | Record does not show requested footage was improperly ignored. | Argument insufficient to disturb denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process includes opportunity to call witnesses when not unduly hazardous to safety)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (some evidence standard for disciplinary actions)
- Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 372 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2004) (waiver rule: issue not raised in opening brief is waived)
- Cepero, 224 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2000) (no certificate of appealability required to appeal §2241 ruling)
- Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 642 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2011) (documentary evidence must be properly presented to disturb denial)
- Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard of review in habeas appeals)
- Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam affirmations permitted on any record-supported basis)