Arias v. Barnes

Background

Esther Arias, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging prison disciplinary proceedings. The Bureau of Prisons charged her with violating Code 108, which prohibits possessing a hazardous tool such as a portable telephone, and Code 224, which prohibits assaulting another person. The alleged incident occurred at the Federal Prison Camp in Danbury, Connecticut.

A disciplinary hearing officer initially found Arias guilty and imposed sanctions. For the Code 108 violation, the sanctions included disallowance of 40 days of good-conduct time, forfeiture of 100 days of non-vested good-conduct time, and 60 days of disciplinary segregation. For the Code 224 violation, the sanctions included disallowance of 27 days of good-conduct time, 30 days of disciplinary segregation, and loss of phone privileges for 90 days.

On appeal, the Regional Director sent the matter back for a new hearing because Arias had not been allowed to have her requested witnesses appear before the disciplinary hearing officer and had not signed an acknowledgment concerning the availability of her staff representative. After the second hearing, a different disciplinary hearing officer found Arias guilty of the same violations and imposed the same sanctions.

Arias’s objections

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Arias objected, arguing that the Bureau of Prisons failed to provide advance written notice of the charges, failed to hold a required Unit Discipline Committee hearing before the rehearing, and relied on insufficient evidence.

Arias disputed the date on the incident report showing when she received notice. The court credited the warden’s explanation that the later date was a typographical error and found that Arias had received the report before the initial Unit Discipline Committee hearing. The court also found that the required hearing had occurred and that Arias had opportunities to call witnesses and present documentary evidence during the disciplinary process. Because written decisions identified the evidence relied on and the reasons for the sanctions, the court rejected her due-process claim.

Evidence supporting the disciplinary findings

The court applied the rule that prison discipline resulting in loss of good-conduct time satisfies due process if the record contains “some evidence” supporting the disciplinary decision. The court does not reweigh the evidence or independently assess witness credibility under that standard.

For the telephone-possession violation, the court relied on evidence that a charger was found in Arias’s bag, the phone was found near her possessions, and outgoing messages were sent to her daughter and numbers associated with Arias’s prior prison telephone calls. The court explained that the records Arias cited showing no information was found concerned only money transfers; other categories connected the numbers to her. The court also found that Arias was not in the special housing unit until 2:51 p.m., contrary to her claim that she had been there since noon and could not have accessed her account when the message was sent.

For the assault violation, the court relied on Officer Garcia’s account that Arias pushed and scratched her during a struggle over a bag, a medical report documenting injuries to Garcia, and an inmate’s account of seeing the struggle. The court rejected Arias’s argument that the absence of video evidence made the evidence insufficient, noting that the record indicated Garcia had not anticipated using force and had used no more than a minimal amount of force to retrieve the bag.

Ruling

After reviewing the objected-to portions of the recommendation from scratch, Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Arias’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and denied Arias’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.