Lopez v. FMC Rochester and Jared Rardin

Background

Joel Lopez, Jr. challenged the loss of 41 days of good-time credit imposed after prison guards found 28 strips of an unknown substance in his sock; the substance was later determined to be Suboxone. The first disciplinary proceeding was vacated after Lopez challenged the Discipline Hearing Officer’s appointment under the federal Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The Bureau of Prisons then held a second proceeding before a different adjudicator and imposed the same 41-day sanction.

Lopez’s initial habeas petition did not explain why the second proceeding was unlawful. After the court ordered him to provide the grounds and supporting facts for relief, he filed an amended petition. The amended petition stated that the “newly written charge” remained inconsistent with the truth of events. The court read this generously as a possible claim that insufficient evidence supported the disciplinary sanction and that the sanction violated due process.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the amended petition failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for a habeas petition. Those requirements call for the petitioner to identify each ground for relief and state the facts supporting each ground. Lopez did not provide facts explaining why the evidence was insufficient.

The court also concluded that Lopez had not exhausted that possible evidence-related claim through the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative process. Although he appealed the disciplinary sanction through the highest levels of that process, his appeals focused mainly on the Discipline Hearing Officer’s appointment and an issue concerning when his rights under Miranda were explained. The administrative materials did not show that he argued that the evidence was insufficient.

The court noted that, even if adequately pleaded, an evidence-sufficiency claim would face a demanding standard: due process requires only some evidence in the record supporting the disciplinary finding. The court did not decide that claim on its merits because Lopez had not adequately pleaded it and had not exhausted it.

Recommendation and Procedure

Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that Lopez’s amended habeas petition be denied and that the case be dismissed. The document is a Report and Recommendation rather than a final order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served and that the report was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.