MacDermott v. Rardin

Background

Troy Nicholas MacDermott filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging Bureau of Prisons disciplinary proceedings. He was serving an 86-month prison term and sought restoration of 27 days of good-conduct time so that he could be released sooner. The disciplinary proceedings arose from a December 31, 2023, incident in the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, involving another inmate identified as B.S.

The Bureau of Prisons charged MacDermott with Code 299, disruptive conduct rated high severity and most like Code 203, threatening bodily harm. The incident report stated that video footage and an investigation showed MacDermott yelling and pointing aggressively at B.S. and throwing B.S.’s personal items onto the floor. MacDermott denied threatening B.S., but acknowledged during the disciplinary process that he became angry, yelled at B.S. to leave, and knocked over B.S.’s belongings.

A Discipline Hearing Officer held a hearing on January 30, 2024. MacDermott denied the charge, submitted a 12-page written statement, gave an oral statement, and requested N.C. as a witness. N.C. could not attend but provided a written statement that the hearing officer considered. The hearing officer found that MacDermott committed the charged offense and imposed sanctions of 27 days of disallowed good-conduct time, 30 days of disciplinary segregation suspended for 180 days, and 30 days without commissary privileges.

Due-process analysis

The court explained that losing good-conduct time implicates a protected liberty interest. In prison disciplinary proceedings, due process requires four basic protections: advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to present evidence, a written explanation from the decision-maker, and a decision supported by at least some evidence in the record.

First, the court found that MacDermott received adequate advance written notice even though the Bureau of Prisons did not provide the incident report within the agency’s ordinarily applicable 24-hour period. He received the report three days before the initial disciplinary hearing and eight days before the hearing officer’s hearing, giving him time to prepare. The court held that the agency’s failure to follow its own timing rule did not violate due process because the constitutional minimum was satisfied.

Second, the court found that MacDermott had an opportunity to present evidence. He gave written and oral statements, and N.C.’s written witness statement was considered. The court also rejected MacDermott’s claim that he was denied due process by not being allowed to view the security video. The court concluded that MacDermott did not show that the lack of access prejudiced him or that the result would have been different if he had viewed the video.

Third, the court found that the hearing officer provided a written explanation of the decision. Although MacDermott received the report nearly six months after the hearing, the record showed that he was able to appeal through both the Bureau of Prisons’ regional and central offices. The court therefore found no due-process violation from the delay.

Fourth, the court applied the requirement that a disciplinary decision be supported by “some evidence.” It found that the incident report, the security video as described in the records, MacDermott’s admissions, and other statements supported the hearing officer’s conclusion. The court did not independently reweigh the evidence. It also noted that the sanctions fell within the available sanctions for a high-severity offense and that MacDermott identified no evidence showing that his sanctions differed from those imposed on similarly situated inmates.

Disposition

The court concluded that MacDermott had not shown that the disciplinary decision violated due process. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that the petition be denied and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The court also determined that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the matter could be resolved from the record.

The document is a Report and Recommendation rather than a final district-court order or judgment. It stated that objections could be filed within 14 days after service and that the recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.