Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fowles v. Denham

United States District Court, D. Colorado

September 26, 2014

DEBORAH DENHAM, Warden, FCI-Englewood, Respondent.


LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.

Applicant, Dwayne Fowles, is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colorado. He initiated this action by filing an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No.1). Mr. Fowles has paid the $5.00 filing fee.

The Court construes the Application liberally because Mr. Fowles is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court does not advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, this action will be dismissed.

In the § 2241 Application, Mr. Fowles challenges the procedures used to deny him vested good time credits as a violation of due process. (ECF No. 1, at 2). He asks the Court to order Respondent to expunge Incident Report No. 2492696 and to restore 27 days of forfeited good time credits. ( Id. at 5). In a "Motion for Exhausted Administrative Remedies" (ECF No. 3), Mr. Fowles explains the factual basis of his due process claim as follows:

Applicant... received an incident report for code 200 (escape from a non-secure institution with subsequent voluntary return to Bureau of Prisons Custody within four hours) and 307 (refusing to obey an order). The UDC hearing was conducted beyond the time frame of 5 work days, allegedly due to Annual Firearms Training. However, Jeff Krieger, Warden at F.C.I. Pekin, Illinois, stated: "Although prior approval was not granted to extend the UDC time frame for the UDC conducted September 22, 2013, for incident report 2492696, I would have approved the delay at that time and am approving it now." See (Attachment) dated August 20, 2014.
On September 5, 2014, the applicant received a Memorandum from K. Nikes Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) which stated: The above incident report was remanded for reconsideration pursuant to an appeal. The remand was based on the discipline packet not containing a warden's approval extending the UDC time frame. The Warden has approved the UDC time frame retroactively. The original hearing is upheld." See (attachment 2), dated on September 5, 2014.

(ECF No. 3, at 1-2; see also id. at 4, 5). The September 5, 2014 Memorandum further advises Applicant that he has 20 days to submit an Administrative Remedy Appeal to the North Central Regional Office. ( Id. at 5).

Mr. Fowles initiated this action on September 16, 2014, without first exhausting his available administrative remedy. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir. 2010); Williams v. O'Brien, 792 F.2d 986, 987 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied through proper use of the available administrative procedures. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (discussing exhaustion of administrative remedies in the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). A federal court may deny a § 2241 application on the merits without resolving the exhaustion question. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000).

Mr. Fowles claims in the Application that the warden's approval extending the UDC hearing time frame violated his due process rights under Wolff v. McDonnel, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).

"It is well settled that an inmate's liberty interest in his earned good time credits cannot be denied without the minimal safeguards afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'" Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 811 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying law to federal prisoner) (quoting Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1444 (10th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). However, "[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).

Where a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss of good time credits, ... the inmate must receive: (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.

Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67).

Moreover, to comport with due process, there must be some evidence to support a disciplinary conviction. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. "Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Id. at 455-56. A disciplinary board's decision can be upheld by a reviewing court "even ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.