Talbert v. Thomas

Background

Jesse L. Talbert, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Bureau of Prisons. He alleged that the sanctions violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights because they were arbitrary and unreasonable.

While Talbert was assigned to work at an outside warehouse, prison officials found a contraband cell phone. The phone contained a message stating, in part, “Chime: Jesse Talbert requests $100.” Officials charged Talbert with Code 199, using it as a stand-in for possessing a hazardous tool—here, a portable telephone—and Code 217, which prohibits giving or receiving money for a prohibited purpose. Talbert admitted guilt at the Discipline Hearing Officer hearing.

For the Code 199 violation, the hearing officer disallowed 41 days of vested good-conduct time and forfeited 324 days of non-vested good-conduct time. The officer also imposed suspended disciplinary segregation, restrictions on commissary, telephone, and visiting privileges, and a $500 fine. The Code 217 violation resulted in an additional 13 days of disallowed vested time, disciplinary segregation, privilege restrictions, and a $300 fine.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Talbert objected to the conclusion that forfeiting the non-vested good-conduct time complied with due process.

Analysis

The district court reviewed the objected-to portion of the recommendation from the beginning. It explained that due process requires advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity—consistent with institutional safety—to call witnesses and present evidence, and a written explanation of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the discipline. The disciplinary finding also must be supported by at least “some evidence.” Prison officials’ disciplinary decisions are generally not subject to review unless they are arbitrary or unreasonable.

The court held that forfeiting the 324 days of non-vested good-conduct time, in addition to disallowing 41 vested days, was permitted under Bureau of Prisons regulations and implementing instructions for a greatest-severity offense. Those rules allowed forfeiture of up to 100% of non-vested good-conduct time and disallowance of between 50% and 75% of vested good-conduct time. The court therefore rejected Talbert’s argument that the forfeiture was an upward departure requiring special justification.

The court also concluded that the hearing officer’s explanation was sufficient and that the disciplinary process did not violate Talbert’s due-process rights.

Disposition

The court overruled Talbert’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It denied Talbert’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, denied his motion to expedite as moot, dismissed the action with prejudice, and did not issue a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).