Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Pittman v. Fox

United States District Court, D. Colorado

April 23, 2018

DARNELL PITTMAN, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
JACK FOX, Warden, Defendant.

          ORDER

          CHRISTINE M. ARGULLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court upon Applicant Darnell Pittman, Sr.'s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Application”), filed December 11, 2017. (Doc. # 1.) United States Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondent Jack Fox to show cause why the Application should not be granted on February 24, 2018. (Doc. # 10.) Respondent timely filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause on March 19, 2018.[1] (Doc. # 14.)

         This Court has carefully considered the Application, related briefing, the case file, and the applicable law, and has determined that a hearing would not materially assist in the Court's disposition of the Application. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Application.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Applicant is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal Correction Institution, Administrative Maximum Facility (“ADX”) in Florence, Colorado. (Doc. # 1 at 1.)

         On March 15, 2016, while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida, Applicant was issued Incident Report No. 2827118 (the “Incident Report”), in which he was accused of threatening a penitentiary staff member, Officer Spade, with bodily harm in violation of Code 203. (Id. at 2); see (Doc. # 14-3 at 5-6.) The Incident Report alleged that earlier that same day, Officer Spade was conducting rounds in the penitentiary when Applicant “stopped [him] and stated”:

         You guys think you're safe but when I have my guys meet you in the parking lot you'll see! . . . you have down time you need to go on the computer and check out Heartless Felons Ohio, you'll see what we do! SIS don't have me here for no reason and as long as you have children you're valuable!

(Doc. # 14-3 at 5.) Officer Spade described in the Incident Report that he later learned that “Heartless Felon[s] Ohio is one of the largest organized threat groupsin [sic] the state prison system” and commits “slayings, robberies, home invasions, [and] drug and gun sales.” (Id.)

         Applicant received the Incident Report and was advised of his rights later that afternoon. (Id. at 5-6.) Applicant confirmed that he understood his rights. (Id. at 6.) He did not provide any evidence to the investigating lieutenant, nor did he request any witnesses. (Id.) The Incident Report was then referred to the Unit Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) for further processing. (Id.)

         The UDC processed the Incident Report on March 17, 2016. (Doc. # 1 at 2.) Applicant told the UDC that he “did not threaten anyone.” (Doc. # 14-3 at 5.) The UDC decided to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”). (Id.) Applicant was given a Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO and a written notice of his rights at the DHO hearing. (Id. at 7-8.) He requested that Officer McSherry be his staff representative at the hearing and identified two witnesses to testify on his behalf. (Id. at 7; Doc. # 1 at 2-3.)

         DHO White conducted the hearing on March 31, 2016. (Doc. # 14-3 at 1-3.) DHO White recounted the hearing in an affidavit in support of Respondent's Response to the Order to Show Cause: “I reviewed Applicant's due process rights with him . . . Applicant confirmed he understood his rights and had no documentary evidence to present.” (Doc. # 14-1 at 3-4.) Applicant told DHO White that the Incident Report was a lie-that “the charging office totally made up the allegations.” (Id. at 5; Doc. # 1 at 4.) DHO White described the rest of the hearing:

As requested, Officer M. McSharry appeared at the DHO hearing as Applicant's staff representative. Officer McSharry confirmed that he did meet with Applicant prior to the hearing and that he reviewed the incident report with Applicant. Officer McSharry had no additional information to add nor did he make any statements on Applicant's behalf.
. . . Both witnesses [requested by Applicant] appeared at the hearing and made statements on Applicant's behalf.
Applicant's first witness stated that he did not hear any threatening comments made by Applicant. Further, the witness stated that he never heard anything ...

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.