Hewlett v. Warden
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-02293
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Hewlett v. Warden, Judge Wright denied Hewlett’s habeas petition and dismissed the case with prejudice after upholding prison discipline.
Auzio Hewlett, whose challenge to the loss of good-conduct time was denied, and the Warden, who prevailed in the case.
What happened
In Auzio Hewlett v. Warden, Hewlett challenged the loss of 14 days of good-conduct time and 60 days of email privileges after prison officials found that he violated a rule by using a third-party messaging service to contact an unapproved number. He argued that the investigation was unfair, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the penalties were excessive.
The court reviewed Hewlett’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that his petition be denied. It concluded that there was enough evidence to support the disciplinary finding, that the rule covered the conduct, and that inmates had notice that third-party messaging services and messages to unapproved contacts were prohibited. The court also found no clear error in the recommendation’s other conclusions.
Judge Wright overruled Hewlett’s objections, adopted the recommendation, denied his petition under the federal law allowing prisoners to challenge custody, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hewlett v. Warden · No. 0:18-cv-02293
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 5, 2019
Background
Auzio Hewlett, an inmate at FMC Rochester, attempted in November 2017 to send a text message through a third-party forwarding service to a telephone number that was not on his approved phone list. Prison officials investigated the incident and held two hearings. They determined that Hewlett violated Code 296, described as “Use of Mail for Abuses Other than Criminal Activity.” The officials imposed 14 days of lost good-conduct time and 60 days of lost email privileges.
Hewlett filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute used here to challenge the loss of good-conduct time. He argued that the investigative officer was also the reporting officer, that the evidence did not support the disciplinary finding, and that the sanctions were excessive.
Report and Recommendation and Objections
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended denying Hewlett’s petition and dismissing the case with prejudice. Hewlett objected, and the Warden responded. Because Hewlett objected to parts of the recommendation, the district court independently reviewed those disputed parts. The court also construed Hewlett’s filings liberally because he was representing himself.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that due process requires “some evidence” to support a prison decision that causes an inmate to lose good-conduct time. The record showed that Hewlett used a third-party messaging service to attempt to send a message to “5133227566,” a number not on his approved list. FMC Rochester had policies prohibiting third-party forwarding services and requiring messages to be sent to approved contacts. The court concluded that this was at least some evidence supporting the disciplinary decision.
The court rejected Hewlett’s argument that Code 296 applied only to paper correspondence, stating that the rule did not support that narrow interpretation. It also rejected his argument that he lacked advance notice. According to the record, inmates had notice of the policies prohibiting third-party messaging systems and requiring approved contacts.
Hewlett did not object to the remaining parts of the recommendation. The court reviewed those parts for clear error and found none.
Disposition
The court overruled Hewlett’s objections, adopted the April 30, 2019 Report and Recommendation, denied Hewlett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.