Pinson v. Warden

Background

Jeremy Pinson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a federal prison disciplinary decision. The decision arose from an October 2, 2016 incident at a federal correctional facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. The incident report alleged violations of three prison codes: assaulting with serious injury, self-mutilation, and possessing a dangerous weapon.

After a competency evaluation, Dr. John Brandt found Pinson competent to participate in the disciplinary process and responsible for their actions at the time of the incident. Pinson received an initial hearing and a later hearing before Discipline Hearing Officer Kevin Nikes. Pinson had a staff representative, did not call witnesses, and submitted mental-health-related information. On February 13, 2017, the disciplinary officer found Pinson committed all three violations and revoked 41 days of good-conduct time for the assault violation, 41 days for possessing a dangerous weapon, and 27 days for self-mutilation.

Claims and Positions

Pinson argued that the Bureau of Prisons violated the Fifth Amendment by denying an adequate opportunity to call witnesses and submit documentary evidence and by making an improper competency and responsibility assessment. Pinson sought expungement of the disciplinary findings and restoration of the lost good-conduct time and custody-classification points.

The government argued that Pinson received all process required in a prison disciplinary proceeding and that sufficient evidence supported the findings. The opinion states that the government did not dispute that Pinson had exhausted available administrative remedies, so the court did not address exhaustion.

Analysis

The court applied the rule that due process is satisfied when a prison disciplinary decision affecting good-conduct time is supported by “some evidence.” The court does not reweigh the evidence or independently assess witness credibility under that standard.

The court found sufficient evidence supporting the disciplinary officer’s findings. That evidence included Pinson’s own statements about striking Lieutenant Rodriguez and cutting their body, statements from responding officers, and Dr. Brandt’s assessment that Pinson was competent and responsible at the time of the incident.

The court also applied the procedural safeguards identified in Wolff v. McDonnell. Those safeguards require advance written notice, an impartial hearing body, an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence, assistance in appropriate circumstances, and a written explanation of the decision. The court found that Pinson received these protections: written notice, hearings before an impartial disciplinary officer, a staff representative, opportunities to present witnesses and documents, and a written decision. The court also concluded that Pinson’s decisions not to call a witness, request Dr. Rice’s assistance, or submit evidence concerning the effect of PCP did not establish a due-process violation.

Disposition

The recommendation states that Pinson’s § 2241 petition should be denied, that the matter should be dismissed with prejudice, and that judgment should be entered accordingly. The court also denied Pinson’s motion to supplement the record because the additional incident report did not support the claims. The document was a Report and Recommendation signed by Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel, not a final district-court order or judgment. It stated that objections could be filed by August 16, 2018, after which a judge would conduct a new review of any specifically challenged portions.