Leinheiser v. Pilier

Background

Noe Leinheiser, appearing without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of how a sentence is being carried out. He challenged disciplinary sanctions imposed while he was in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody after officials found a cell-phone battery pack in his possession on January 4, 2019.

A prison incident report charged Leinheiser with possessing a hazardous tool and being in an unauthorized area. At the disciplinary hearing, Leinheiser was advised of his rights and declined a staff representative, witnesses, and documentary evidence. He admitted that he was guilty and said he intended to sell the battery. The hearing officer found him responsible for possessing a hazardous tool, relying on his admission, an officer’s eyewitness account, a photograph, chain-of-custody records, and evidence from an earlier incident. The hearing officer expunged the unauthorized-area violation but imposed a loss of 13 days of good-conduct time, forfeiture of 28 days of non-vested good-conduct time, and loss of visitation privileges for 180 days.

Leinheiser argued that the disciplinary process violated due process because the decision lacked reliable evidence, the incident report was later altered, and officials falsely described the item as a cell-phone battery. He also alleged that officials falsified the report in retaliation for his filing grievances against prison staff. He asked the court to expunge the disciplinary action and restore his good-conduct time.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended denying the petition. Neither party objected. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, found none, adopted the report in full, and ruled on the petition.

Due Process Claim

The court explained that losing good-conduct time implicates a protected liberty interest, so a federal prisoner is entitled to minimum constitutional protections during the disciplinary process. Those protections include timely written notice of the charges, a neutral hearing officer, an opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses, assistance when necessary, and a written decision explaining the evidence and reasons for the result.

The court agreed that these requirements were satisfied. Leinheiser received the incident report nearly two months before the hearing, and it explained the conduct at issue and the resulting charges. The court said that Leinheiser’s challenges to the report’s authenticity did not make the notice inadequate. It also found that the hearing officer’s decision was supported by reliable evidence, including Leinheiser’s admission, the reporting officer’s account, the photograph, chain-of-custody records, and the earlier incident. The court rejected Leinheiser’s challenge to the evidence because the relevant question was whether some reliable evidence supported the decision, not whether the court would independently reweigh the evidence.

Retaliation Claim

The court also considered Leinheiser’s claim that officials retaliated against him for filing prison grievances. A retaliation claim requires allegations that the person engaged in protected activity, officials took adverse action, and the protected activity caused that action. The court found that Leinheiser did not provide enough detail about the alleged grievances, including who they were filed against, how many he filed, or what they concerned. The court therefore concluded that he had not sufficiently alleged protected activity.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report in full and DENIED Leinheiser’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It directed the clerk to close the petition and the action.