3:15-cv-00729
W.D. Wis.May 5, 2016Background
- Petitioner Andrew Rovito, on home confinement, had an approved pass to Sam’s Club on Dec. 22, 2014 from 12:00–4:00 p.m.; he checked out at 11:58 a.m. and returned at 3:59 p.m.
- Rovito could not enter Sam’s Club because he forgot his membership card and instead obtained a 12:36 p.m. receipt from a nearby Jewel-Osco; he lacked proof of being at Sam’s Club and could not account for his whereabouts between 12:36 and 3:59 p.m.
- The residential reentry center issued an incident report charging Code 200 escape for deviating from the approved itinerary; Rovito was notified, had a hearing, denied the charge, and did not present witnesses.
- The Center Disciplinary Committee and a BOP discipline hearing officer found Rovito guilty, relying on the pass sign-in/out log, the supervision plan, and the Jewel-Osco receipt; sanctions disallowed 27 days vested GCT and forfeited 33 days non-vested GCT and removed him from a program.
- Rovito filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming the disciplinary loss of good-time credits violated due process because the decision lacked “some evidence.” The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rovito’s loss of good-time credits violated due process because the disciplinary finding lacked “some evidence” | Rovito: BOP had no evidence he escaped custody; receipt only shows presence at Jewel-Osco, not Sam’s Club, so the finding is unsupported | BOP: records (sign-in/out log, supervision plan, receipt) show deviation from approved itinerary; Code 200 covers voluntary return within 4 hours; some evidence exists | Court: Denied petition — disciplinary finding met the lenient “some evidence” standard and procedural due process requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841 (7th Cir.) (federal inmates must receive due process before revocation of good-time credits)
- Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir.) (habeas available to challenge post-conviction actions that lengthen confinement)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 529 (procedural due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (some evidence standard for prison disciplinary findings)
- Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.) (some evidence is a lenient standard; courts do not reweigh evidence in disciplinary appeals)