Travis Denny v. Paul Schultz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3235
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Denny, an inmate at FCI Fairton, was found to possess two homemade shanks in a shared cell duct area during March 2009 searches.
- DHO sanctioned Denny with sixty days of disciplinary segregation and forty days of forfeiture of good time credits for Possession of a Weapon (BOP Code 104).
- Record on appeal is limited because the district court dismissed sua sponte before the BOP appeared or discovery occurred.
- Denny challenged under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing denial of due process in depriving good time credits.
- Appellate proceedings followed with the district court’s habeas denial reviewed de novo; the record relies on Denny’s petition and supporting materials.
- Issue concerns whether the DHO’s “some evidence” standard was satisfied given contraband found in a shared cell and the applicability of collective responsibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether some evidence supports Denny’s possession finding | Denny contends no basis in fact that he possessed the weapons | BOP argues collective responsibility suffices given shared cell | Yes; some evidence supports possession despite shared cell |
| Whether collective responsibility can substitute for individual possession | Denny argues collective responsibility improperly expands possession beyond individual control | Majority endorses collective responsibility based on area-wide duty to keep contraband free | No; collective responsibility cannot replace some evidence of individual possession |
| Whether constructive possession standard applies in prison context | Denny urges dominion/control or knowledge standard | Court relies on some evidence, not dominion/control | Some evidence standard affirmed under Hill; not required to show dominion alone |
| Whether Denny’s good-time credit deprivation violated due process | Deprivations must be supported by some basis in fact | Discipline served legitimate safety interests; standard met | Affirmed district court; Denny’s due process rights not violated by loss of good time |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed § 2243 petition | Dismissal improper given potential factual disputes | Record supports dismissal without evidentiary hearing | Affirmed; panel held standard satisfied by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (some evidence standard for safeguarding good-time credits)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309 (3d Cir. 2001) (prison searches and contraband enforcement context)
- Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1987) (some evidence standard clarified on appeal)
- Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2011) (collective responsibility approach in shared-cell contraband)
- Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1992) (probability-based approach to possession rejected as some evidence)