United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
VINCENT K. GRAHAM Petitioner,
WARDEN OF FCI-CUMBERLAND Respondent.
J. HAZEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
K. Graham brings this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, naming as Respondent
the Warden of FCI-Cumberland. Graham alleges that he was not
afforded due process during a hearing that resulted in his
good time credit being revoked. Pending before the Court is
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or. in the alternative,
for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 11. Graham opposes the motion.
ECF No. 14, ECF No. 15. No hearing is necessary to resolve
the matters pending in this case. Sec Local Rule
105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated below.
Respondent's motion, construed as a Motion for Summary
Judgment, shall be granted and the Petition shall be
Graham is an inmate committed to the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and incarcerated in
Federal Correctional Institution-Cumberland
("FCI-Cumberland"). He asserts that disciplinary
proceedings filed against him that resulted in revocation of
good conduct time were improper and seeks restoration of the
good conduct time and expungement of the charges from his
prison record. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 5.
claims that on December 10. 2015, while he was incarcerated
at FCI-Allenwood. he was assaulted by another inmate. ECF No.
1 at 6.He states the assault occurred at 1:30
a.m.. while he was climbing down from the top bunk to use the
restroom. Id. He explains that the cell housed a
total of six men and is located in the Special Housing Unit
("SHU"), Id. Graham was-examined by
medical staff later in the morning on December 10. 2015. He
claims that, following that exam, SIS Lt. Prutzman threatened
"to stick me with a shot" because Graham failed to
cooperate with the investigation of the assault. Id.
Graham relates that he was never served with an
Administrative Detention Order. Id.
January 8. 2016. Graham was served with an incident report
and claims that Prutzman "falsified material facts"
when he claimed that Graham admitted he was involved in a
physical altercation. Graham states that he never admitted
any involvement in an altercation and insists he was the
victim of an assault. Id. He further states that his
assailant was "allowed to be discharge[d] earlier than
his scheduled release date and prior to our DHO
hearing." Id. After a hearing. Graham was found
guilty of lighting with another person, Id.
February 10. 2016. during a tour of the SHU by the Warden.
Graham claims that Prutzman stopped at his cell and said.
"I told you I was going to stick you with a shot."
ECF No. 1 at 6. Prutzman then laughed and walked away.
Id. Graham claims that on February 24. 2016.
Prutzman again stopped at his cell during the warden's
tour of the SHU and said. "1 guess I won't be
getting a Christmas card from you this year." Prutzman
then laughed and walked away. Id. On March 2, 2016.
Graham claims that Prutzman slopped at his cell, stared at
Graham's "private parts." and said, "he
wants me to make love to him!" Id. Prutzman began
asserts that Prutzman began taunting him after he was found
guilty on the incident report written by Prutzman. Prior to
receiving the incident report and during the time Graham was
awaiting a hearing. Prutzman never stopped at Graham's
cell nor did he harass Graham. Id. Graham bases his
claim for relief on: (1) the assertion that he never received
a copy of the Administrative Detention Order. (2) the
allegation that Prutzman falsified material facts during his
investigation, and (3) that the sanctions imposed violated
BOP policies and regulations. Id. at 7-8.
Motion provides information regarding the Inmate Disciplinary
Process as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 4042 and 28 C.F.R.
§ 500. el seq, which the Court summarizes here.
ECF No. 11 at 2-A. When BOP staff reasonably believe
that an inmate has violated a regulation. an incident report
is prepared. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). The inmate suspected
of the violation is provided a written copy of the charges
against him usually within 24 hours of the time that staff
first becomes aware of the inmate's involvement.
time the incident report is provided to the inmate, an
investigating officer reads the charges to the inmate and
asks for the inmate's statement while advising the inmate
of their right to remain silent and that silence may be used
against them (a prisoner's silence alone, however, cannot
be used as the sole basis to find him guilty). The
investigating officer is tasked with investigating the
incident, recording all steps and actions taken on the
incident report, and forwarding all relevant materials to the
Unit Disciplinary Committee ("UDC") for an initial
hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b).
usually holds an initial hearing within five working days
from the date the incident report is issued. 28 C.F.R. §
541.7(b). The inmate is entitled to be present at the initial
hearing, excluding deliberations by the committee or where
security of the prison would be compromised by the
inmate's presence. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(d). At the
hearing, the inmate is entitled to make a statement and
present documentary evidence on his behalf. 28 C.F.R. §
41.7(e). The UDC"s decision following the initial
hearing must be based on at least some facts. Where there is
conflicting evidence, the decision is based on the greater
weight of the evidence. 28 C.F.R. §541.7(e).
must decide whether the inmate committed the prohibited act
charged or one similar to it. did not commit the prohibited
act as charged or refer the case to the Disciplinary Hearing
Officer ("DHO") for further proceedings. 28 C.F.R.
§ 541.7(a). A case is referred to the DHO for further
proceedings when the alleged violation of BOP rules is
serious and warrants consideration of major sanctions. 28
C.F.R. § 541.17(f). When this referral is made, the UDC
forwards copies of all relevant documents to the DHO with a
brief statement of reasons for the ...