Nero v. Ebbert
1:19-cv-00486
| M.D. Penn. | May 17, 2019Background
- Nero, a federal inmate at USP Lewisburg, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging prison disciplinary proceedings and his confinement in the Special Management Unit (SMU).
- Oct. 17, 2017: Incident Report No. 3045565 charged Nero with possession of drugs (Code 113) and attempting to destroy an item (Code 115A); hearing on Nov. 1, 2017 found him guilty; sanctions included 7 days disciplinary segregation, 1 year commissary loss, 1 year visitation loss; no loss of good conduct time (GCT).
- July 12, 2018: Incident Report No. 3145105 charged Nero with refusing a urinalysis (Code 110); Aug. 1, 2018 hearing found him guilty; sanctions included 30 days disciplinary segregation, 180 days commissary loss, 180 days visitation loss; no GCT lost.
- Nero contends officials relied on those disciplinary findings in placing him in the SMU and requests restoration/expungement of sanctions, restoration of GCT, and release from the SMU.
- The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas relief is available to challenge disciplinary proceedings and sanctions when no GCT was lost | Nero argues the disciplinary hearings violated due process and seeks relief (expungement, sanctions lifted) via habeas | Respondent argues no loss of GCT occurred so the disciplinary sanctions do not implicate the fact or duration of confinement and are not cognizable in habeas | Court held habeas unavailable because no GCT loss; sanctions did not affect duration of confinement |
| Whether placement in SMU may be challenged via habeas | Nero seeks release from SMU, asserting placement affects duration/execution of sentence | Respondent contends SMU placement does not alter the sentence and is not a habeas matter; such claims belong in civil rights actions | Court held SMU placement challenge not cognizable in habeas (must be brought as civil rights action) |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas challenges to fact or duration of confinement govern restoration of good-time credits)
- Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2002) (distinguishes challenges that affect confinement duration from other prison-condition claims)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (clarifies availability of habeas relief for certain prison disciplinary actions)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (relief for prison disciplinary defects that affect good-time credits must be sought via habeas)
- Cardona v. Thompson, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2012) (placement in SMU does not change the execution or duration of sentence and is not cognizable in habeas)