Wentzel v. Pliler

Background

Philip Hugh Wentzel, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a prison disciplinary determination. The determination found him guilty of fighting with another inmate. The court had referred the petition to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, who issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the petition be denied. Wentzel filed objections, and Warden W.S. Pliler responded.

Wentzel’s objections

Wentzel argued that the disciplinary determination did not satisfy due process because it was not supported by reliable evidence. The district court explained that the applicable review asks whether the decision is supported by “some evidence,” which the cited authority describes as reliable evidence of guilt. The court concluded that Wentzel’s objection repeated arguments he had already made and therefore reviewed the R&R on that issue for clear error. It found no clear error.

Wentzel also objected to the conclusion that his claim involving Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5270.09 was not cognizable. He argued that his opportunity to present evidence and witnesses was impaired because his written statement was accepted but not read or considered by the disciplinary hearing officer. The court found that some of these arguments repeated points already considered by Judge Cott. It declined to consider another argument because Wentzel could have raised it before Judge Cott but had not done so. The court also found no clear error in the remainder of the R&R.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres overruled Wentzel’s objections, adopted the R&R’s conclusions, and denied the petition. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Wentzel and close the case.