Seegers v. Warden, USP Allenwood
1:18-cv-01343
| M.D. Penn. | Jun 6, 2019Background
- Petitioner Franklin Seegers, serving a 720-month federal sentence, was charged at FCI‑Cumberland with attempted introduction of narcotics (Code 111A) after mail containing 10 orange buprenorphine (Suboxone) strips was intercepted in July 2017.
- The incident report initially was suspended pending an FBI referral; Seegers received the incident report on July 28, 2017, and later received written notice of DHO rights and a hearing date.
- At the UDC and DHO hearings Seegers denied intent, claimed staff error, called two witnesses, requested a staff representative, and asserted the substance was not positively identified by a qualified pharmacologist.
- The DHO relied on the incident report, staff memoranda (including Health Services’ identification), photographs of the envelopes and concealment, and emails showing suspicion and communications about ten strips; the DHO found Seegers’ denial not credible.
- The DHO imposed sanctions including 41 days loss of good conduct time, 15 days disciplinary segregation, and loss of email/visiting privileges for one year.
- Seegers filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming due process violations: late notice and failure to refer to the FBI within 24 hours, insufficient evidence/drug identification, and an allegedly biased DHO. The district court denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness of notice / FBI referral | Seegers: Incident report served >24 hours after the event and BOP failed to refer to FBI within 24 hours, warranting dismissal. | Respondent: Regulations allow delays for criminal investigation; incident report and notices complied with BOP timelines. | Court: Denied — procedural rules permit extensions for FBI referral; Seegers received required written notice before DHO. |
| 2. Impartiality of DHO | Seegers: DHO was biased due to alleged union affiliation. | Respondent: No evidence DHO had a disqualifying conflict; procedural safeguards met. | Court: Denied — no showing of actual bias; DHO was impartial. |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence / drug identification | Seegers: Insufficient evidence he conspired to receive drugs; Health Services did not have a qualified pharmacologist positively identify Suboxone. | Respondent: DHO relied on incident report, staff memos, photos, Health Services’ identification, and corroborating emails/communications. | Court: Denied — "some evidence" supports DHO finding under Hill standard. |
| 4. Procedural due process compliance (Wolff rights) | Seegers: Claimed multiple Wolff protections were not satisfied. | Respondent: Seegers received advance written notice, opportunity to call witnesses, staff representation, and a written DHO decision. | Court: Denied — all required Wolff procedures were provided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (establishes minimum due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (sets "some evidence" standard for sufficiency of disciplinary hearing evidence)
- Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2002) (recognizes liberty interest when inmate loses good conduct time)
- Von Kahl v. Brennan, 855 F. Supp. 1413 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (BOP disciplinary procedures meet or exceed Wolff requirements)