Osiel Rodriguez v. Charles Ratledge
715 F. App’x 261
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rodriguez, a federal inmate at USP Lee, faced disciplinary charges (attempted escape; attempted introduction of narcotics) based on a November 19, 2014 incident report.
- He was found guilty at a first DHO hearing of attempted introduction of narcotics (penalties included 41 days forfeited good conduct time), and the escape charge was dismissed; that hearing was not memorialized in a formal DHO report.
- The DHO identified a typographical error in the incident report, requested the report be rewritten, and a rehearing was held with a different DHO based on a revised incident report; the second hearing found Rodriguez guilty of attempted escape (imposing the same penalties, including the 41-day loss).
- Rodriguez filed a § 2241 petition challenging the second hearing and loss of good conduct time (failed to exhaust administratively before filing but later exhausted); later he filed a second § 2241 petition challenging his transfer to ADX Florence (administratively exhausted).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government on both petitions (first: failure to exhaust and no actionable due process violation; second: transfer not cognizable under § 2241 and no protected liberty interest).
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: excused the initial failure to exhaust, held only the good-time claim was cognizable under § 2241, but found no prejudicial due process violation because the same sanctions would have resulted absent the second hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing first § 2241 bars review | Rodriguez: subsequent administrative appeals cure premature filing; equitable excusal justified | Government: exhaustion required; petition filed prematurely should be dismissed | Court: Excused — exhaustion satisfied because administrative process completed before summary judgment, so court considered merits |
| Whether transfer to ADX Florence is cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition | Rodriguez: transfer based on constitutionally flawed second hearing; challenges duration/legitimacy of confinement | Government: transfer challenges conditions, not fact/duration; not cognizable under § 2241 | Court: Transfer is not cognizable under § 2241 (conditions of confinement); could be Bivens but fails on merits |
| Whether loss of good conduct time is cognizable under § 2241 | Rodriguez: loss of good conduct time challenges duration of confinement and is cognizable | Government: loss of good conduct time is cognizable under § 2241; transfer is not | Court: Agrees — forfeiture of good time is cognizable under § 2241 |
| Whether the second hearing and resulting forfeiture violated due process prejudicially | Rodriguez: rehearing was procedurally improper (contravened BOP regs) and vacated the first hearing; thus good-time loss is invalid | Government: even if procedural errors occurred, Rodriguez suffered no prejudice because he would have forfeited same good time from the first hearing | Court: No prejudicial due process violation — sanctions were identical and would have been imposed regardless, so habeas relief not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas proper to challenge fact or duration of confinement)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (exhaustion and habeas context)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interests and atypical, significant hardship test)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing framework)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983) (narrow range of protected liberty interests for inmates)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (no liberty interest in avoiding transfer absent atypical and significant hardship)
- Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2012) (conditions at ADX Florence not atypical or significant)
- Dragenice v. Ridge, 389 F.3d 92 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussion of prudential exhaustion)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (remedy for constitutional violations by federal officers)