United States District Court, D. Maryland
W. Grimm United States District Judge
Petitioner Taofik Gbadamosi, a federal inmate currently
housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland,
Maryland, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prison disciplinary
conviction for fighting with another inmate. Pet., ECF No. 1.
Gbadamosi seeks an expungement of the guilty finding and a
remand to the institution to restore 27 days of lost good
conduct time (“GCT”) days. Id.
before this Court is Respondent Warden Timothy Stewart's
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment. Resp't's Mot., ECF No. 3. Stewart argues
that Gbadamosi is not entitled to the relief he seeks because
he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding
his disciplinary hearing and he has received all of the due
process to which he was entitled. Id. Gbadamosi has
filed a response in opposition, Pet.'s Opp'n, ECF No.
7, and Stewart has filed a reply, Resp't's Reply 10.
After review of the record, exhibits, and applicable law, I
have concluded that a hearing is unnecessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).
reasons set forth below, the Stewart's motion, construed
as a Motion for Summary Judgment, shall be GRANTED, and the
petition shall be DENIED and DISMISSED.
is currently serving an aggregated seven-year sentence
following his convictions for conspiring to commit bank fraud
and aggravated identity theft. Gyurke Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No.
3-2. On September 21, 2016, Gbadamosi was involved in an
altercation with another inmate while standing in line for
dinner. See Gyurke Aff. ¶ 5; Pet. 7. The inmate
hit Gbadamosi in the face. See Gyurke Aff. ¶ 5;
Pet. 7; Discipline Rep. 2, ECF 1-1. Gbadamosi then pushed the
inmate back in his chest and grabbed him by his shirt,
pinning the inmate against the sink behind the serving line.
Discipline Report 2. Gbadamosi maintains that he was
acting in self-defense. See Pet. 7. Both inmates
were then separated, at the direction of staff. Id.
next day, Gbadamosi received an incident report charging him
under Code 201 with fighting. Discipline Report. On September
28, 2016, the charge was presented to the Unit Discipline
Committee (“UDC”), which found that the sanctions
warranted were not available at the UDC level. Gyurke Aff.
¶ 6. The UDC referred the matter to the Discipline
Hearing Officer (“DHO”) and recommended that if
Gbadamosi was found guilty, he should receive the maximum
loss of GCT and visitation. Id. That same day,
Gbadamosi received and signed a “Notice of Discipline
Hearing Before the DHO, ” acknowledging that he had
read and understood his rights. Gyurke Aff. ¶ 7;
Discipline Report 1. The form reflects that Gbadamosi was
advised of his right to the assistance of a staff
representative, to call witnesses, and present documentary
evidence on his behalf at the discipline hearing. Discipline
Report 1. Gbadamosi initially requested a staff
representative, but ultimately stated that he wished to
proceed with the hearing without one. Id. Gbadamosi
also declined to call witnesses on his behalf. Id.
conducted the discipline hearing on October 5, 2016, and
concluded that the greater weight of the evidence supported
the charge of fighting, based on the incident report written
by an officer who witnessed the altercation as well as the
supporting memoranda from staff, clinical assessments of both
Gbadamosi and the inmate, and Gbadamosi's own statements.
Aff. ¶ 9-10. The DHO considered Gbadamosi's
statement of self-defense and determined that Gbadamosi's
actions demonstrated that he was a mutual participant in the
argument and physical altercation. Id. at ¶
10. The DHO sanctioned Gbadamosi with the loss of 27
days of GCT and 90 days of commissary privileges, and imposed
seven days of disciplinary segregation. Id. These
sanctions were within the applicable sanction guidelines for
a Code 201 offense. Id.
appealed the DHO finding by filing an administrative remedy
submission at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office level.
Discipline Report 4. On January 31, 2017, Gbadamosi's
appeal was denied. Id. at 5. Gbadamosi alleges that
he then appealed that denial to the Central Office.
See Pet. 7; Discipline Report 6. There is nothing in
the record, however, to indicate that the Central Office
received such an appeal. Under the Administrative Program,
upon receiving a request or appeal, the administrative remedy
clerk stamps the form with the date received, and logs it
into the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (“BOP”)
SENTRY index as received on that date. Admin. Remedy Program
9, ECF 10-1. Nothing in the SENTRY records show that
Gbadamosi appealed to the Central Office. According to
Gbadamosi, Central Office “ignored [his] appeal
submission” and as such, he urges this Court to deem
his administrative remedies exhausted. Pet. 7.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[t]he court
shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The court
should “view the evidence in the light most favorable
to . . . the nonmovant, and draw all inferences in her favor
without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness'
credibility.” Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med.
Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir.
2002). The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not
mean that any factual dispute will defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere
existence of some alleged factual dispute between
the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment; the requirement is ...