Rome v. Phelps
8:20-cv-03167
| D.S.C. | Mar 31, 2021Background:
- Petitioner (pro se) filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a Bureau of Prisons disciplinary hearing (DHO) that found him guilty of drug use and revoked 41 days of good-time credits, imposed 15 days disciplinary segregation, and suspended privileges.
- Incident report for the Second Charge was dated November 22, 2019; DHO found guilt on December 3, 2019.
- Petitioner argued the November positive test resulted from the same prior drug use underlying an earlier charge and that the two tests were administered too close in time to be reliable; he also claimed he did not receive the DHO report within the 15-day period.
- The Magistrate Judge treated the respondent’s motion as one for summary judgment and recommended granting it; the District Court reviewed objections de novo and adopted the Report.
- The Court found Petitioner received the procedural protections required by Wolff, the DHO report set forth findings and reasons, some evidence supported the DHO’s conclusion, and any delay in receiving the report did not amount to a due process violation or show prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the DHO afford Wolff due-process protections? | Rome says he was denied due process at the disciplinary hearing. | Respondent shows Rome had notice, was informed of rights, and the DHO provided a written statement of findings. | Court: Rome received Wolff protections; no due-process violation. |
| Delay in receiving the DHO report — does it violate due process or prejudice appeals? | Rome says not receiving the report within 15 days prevented administrative appeal and denied relief. | Respondent: BOP policy timing errors do not create constitutional violations; Rome ultimately received the report and hasn’t shown prejudice. | Court: Delay alone is not a due-process violation; claim is moot/no prejudice shown. |
| Actual innocence / reliability of positive test (timing of samples) | Rome contends the second positive was residual from earlier use and tests were too close together to be reliable. | Respondent: Actual-innocence arguments aren’t a freestanding basis for habeas relief; record shows >30 days between samples and some evidence supports the finding. | Court: Claim fails; habeas relief not warranted; “some evidence” supports DHO. |
| Alleged DHO bias | Rome alleges the DHO was clearly partial. | Respondent: No record evidence DHO ignored evidence or acted other than impartially. | Court: No evidence of partiality; DHO was impartial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due-process rights required in prison disciplinary proceedings that may revoke good-time credits)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (disciplinary findings must be supported by "some evidence")
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (district court reviews magistrate judge’s recommendation de novo for objections)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (no de novo review required absent timely, specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report)
- Brown v. Braxton, 373 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2004) (a petitioner must show prejudice from a procedural violation to obtain habeas relief)
- Lennear v. Wilson, 937 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2019) (exclusion or nondisclosure of evidence in disciplinary proceedings is assessed by whether the evidence could have aided the defense)