UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bobby V. Addison
v. Civil No. 15-cv-159-JD Opinion No. 2016 DNH 007 Warden E. L. Tatum, Jr.
O R D E R
Bobby V. Addison, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to overturn the results of a
prison disciplinary proceeding, which revoked good-time credits
as a penalty for fighting. The Warden moves to dismiss the case
on the grounds that the hearing officer’s decision properly did
not credit Addison’s self-defense argument and was supported by
sufficient evidence. Addison did not respond to the motion to
dismiss.
Standard of Review
A complaint will be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) if the factual allegations, taken in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, fail to show that the
plaintiff may recover under a plausible claim. Lister v. Bank
of Am., N.A., 790 F.3d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 2015). To decide a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court considers any documents
submitted with or incorporated into the complaint. Id. Background
Addison was incarcerated in the Special Housing Unit at the
Federal Correctional Facility in Fairton, New Jersey, when the
incident at issue in this case occurred.1 Addison alleges that
on May 15, 2014, officers put another inmate in Addison’s cell
as his cellmate. When Addison got up fifteen minutes later to
use the toilet, the new cellmate swung at him. Addison got
behind the other inmate and took him down to the floor in a
“full nelson hold.” While holding down his cellmate on the
floor, Addison kicked the door and yelled that the other inmate
had swung at him.
Officer C. Nurse was conducting rounds and found Addison
holding the other inmate in a “full nelson hold.” Addison was
yelling: “This guy is swinging on me! I had to defend myself.”
Nurse also saw blood on the other inmate’s face and on the door
glass.
Addison was charged with fighting, offense code 201. A
hearing was held on May 29, 2014. The discipline hearing
officer’s report states that notice of the charge was given to
Addison on May 16 and that Addison was advised of his rights for
the hearing on May 21. Addison waived his right to a staff
1Addison is now held at the Federal Correctional Facility in Berlin, New Hampshire.
2 representative for the hearing and did not request any witnesses
for the hearing.
At the hearing, Addison admitted that the incident
occurred. He stated that the other inmate was only in the cell
for fifteen minutes when the inmate swung at him as Addison got
up to use the bathroom. Addison also stated that he put the
other inmate in a “full-nelson” to restrain him. Addison denied
the charge of fighting on the ground that he was only trying to
restrain the other inmate.
The hearing officer found that Addison “did commit the
prohibited act of Fighting With Another Person, Code 201.” By
way of explanation, the hearing officer stated:
You admitted being [in] a hostile physical altercation with inmate [name omitted] but denied any wrong doing. You offered as your defense that you were just trying to restrain inmate [name omitted]. The DHO took into consideration your statement and gave little weight to your defense. The prohibited act of fighting is committed when an inmate engages in a hostile, verbal or physical altercation with another person. The evidence indicates you put inmate [name omitted] in a full-nelson hold after he tried to punch you. Self- defense is not a plausible defense to fighting in the correctional setting. You chose to become an active participant in a hostile altercation. You are responsible for your own actions.
Doc. no. 1, attachment, at 4. The discipline imposed was
disciplinary segregation for thirty days and disallowing twenty-
seven days of good conduct time. The decision was delivered to
Addison on October 6, 2014.
3 Addison appealed the decision, arguing that the charge
against him should have been brought under Code 224 instead of
201 because Code 224 is “a lesser level of violation.” Addison
also argued that the new cellmate was classified as “Category
III mental health” and should not have been put in his cell and
that the hearing officer erred in ruling that self-defense was
not a plausible defense to the charge. The appeal was denied by
the regional director because the hearing officer’s decision was
based on the greater weight of the evidence. Addison then
appealed to the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and states in his petition filed here that the appeal was not
answered.
Discussion
In his petition seeking relief under § 2241, Addison
indicates that he is challenging the discipline imposed but did
not complete the sections of the petition for stating the
grounds. Addison attached to the petition a document titled:
“Tort Claim under FTCA and 28 USC § 2241 of Petitioner Bobby
Addison.”2 Addison argues in the attached document that he did
not commit the violation as charged because he restrained the
other inmate in self defense and that there was insufficient
2Addison’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act has been docketed as a separate case, and therefore that claim is not considered here.
4 evidence to support the disciplinary decision. The Warden moves
to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the hearing
officer’s decision was based on sufficient evidence and self
defense is not a defense to a disciplinary charge in the prison
environment.
An inmate who is in federal custody may challenge the
execution of his sentence, including the loss of good-time
credits, through a petition under § 2241. Francis v. Maloney,
798 F.3d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting the Supreme Court’s
dicta to the contrary in Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476
(2011)). To succeed, however, the inmate must show that the
discipline was imposed in violation of due process. See
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974).
A. Self Defense
Although the First Circuit has not addressed the issue,
other courts have held that an inmate can be disciplined for
violent conduct even if the inmate acted in self defense. Smith
v. Roal, 494 F. App’x 663, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Jones
v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847-48 (7th Cir. 2011) and Scruggs v.
Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 2007)); Williams v. Kort,
223 F. App’x 95, 100 (3d Cir. 2007); Gates v. Brown, 2015 WL
5971140, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2015); Moore v. Denham, 2015
5 WL 3412874, at *4 (D. Colo. May 27, 2015); Dunn v. Swarthout,
2014 WL 3529915, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2014) (citing
cases); Romm v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bobby V. Addison
v. Civil No. 15-cv-159-JD Opinion No. 2016 DNH 007 Warden E. L. Tatum, Jr.
O R D E R
Bobby V. Addison, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to overturn the results of a
prison disciplinary proceeding, which revoked good-time credits
as a penalty for fighting. The Warden moves to dismiss the case
on the grounds that the hearing officer’s decision properly did
not credit Addison’s self-defense argument and was supported by
sufficient evidence. Addison did not respond to the motion to
dismiss.
Standard of Review
A complaint will be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) if the factual allegations, taken in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, fail to show that the
plaintiff may recover under a plausible claim. Lister v. Bank
of Am., N.A., 790 F.3d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 2015). To decide a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court considers any documents
submitted with or incorporated into the complaint. Id. Background
Addison was incarcerated in the Special Housing Unit at the
Federal Correctional Facility in Fairton, New Jersey, when the
incident at issue in this case occurred.1 Addison alleges that
on May 15, 2014, officers put another inmate in Addison’s cell
as his cellmate. When Addison got up fifteen minutes later to
use the toilet, the new cellmate swung at him. Addison got
behind the other inmate and took him down to the floor in a
“full nelson hold.” While holding down his cellmate on the
floor, Addison kicked the door and yelled that the other inmate
had swung at him.
Officer C. Nurse was conducting rounds and found Addison
holding the other inmate in a “full nelson hold.” Addison was
yelling: “This guy is swinging on me! I had to defend myself.”
Nurse also saw blood on the other inmate’s face and on the door
glass.
Addison was charged with fighting, offense code 201. A
hearing was held on May 29, 2014. The discipline hearing
officer’s report states that notice of the charge was given to
Addison on May 16 and that Addison was advised of his rights for
the hearing on May 21. Addison waived his right to a staff
1Addison is now held at the Federal Correctional Facility in Berlin, New Hampshire.
2 representative for the hearing and did not request any witnesses
for the hearing.
At the hearing, Addison admitted that the incident
occurred. He stated that the other inmate was only in the cell
for fifteen minutes when the inmate swung at him as Addison got
up to use the bathroom. Addison also stated that he put the
other inmate in a “full-nelson” to restrain him. Addison denied
the charge of fighting on the ground that he was only trying to
restrain the other inmate.
The hearing officer found that Addison “did commit the
prohibited act of Fighting With Another Person, Code 201.” By
way of explanation, the hearing officer stated:
You admitted being [in] a hostile physical altercation with inmate [name omitted] but denied any wrong doing. You offered as your defense that you were just trying to restrain inmate [name omitted]. The DHO took into consideration your statement and gave little weight to your defense. The prohibited act of fighting is committed when an inmate engages in a hostile, verbal or physical altercation with another person. The evidence indicates you put inmate [name omitted] in a full-nelson hold after he tried to punch you. Self- defense is not a plausible defense to fighting in the correctional setting. You chose to become an active participant in a hostile altercation. You are responsible for your own actions.
Doc. no. 1, attachment, at 4. The discipline imposed was
disciplinary segregation for thirty days and disallowing twenty-
seven days of good conduct time. The decision was delivered to
Addison on October 6, 2014.
3 Addison appealed the decision, arguing that the charge
against him should have been brought under Code 224 instead of
201 because Code 224 is “a lesser level of violation.” Addison
also argued that the new cellmate was classified as “Category
III mental health” and should not have been put in his cell and
that the hearing officer erred in ruling that self-defense was
not a plausible defense to the charge. The appeal was denied by
the regional director because the hearing officer’s decision was
based on the greater weight of the evidence. Addison then
appealed to the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and states in his petition filed here that the appeal was not
answered.
Discussion
In his petition seeking relief under § 2241, Addison
indicates that he is challenging the discipline imposed but did
not complete the sections of the petition for stating the
grounds. Addison attached to the petition a document titled:
“Tort Claim under FTCA and 28 USC § 2241 of Petitioner Bobby
Addison.”2 Addison argues in the attached document that he did
not commit the violation as charged because he restrained the
other inmate in self defense and that there was insufficient
2Addison’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act has been docketed as a separate case, and therefore that claim is not considered here.
4 evidence to support the disciplinary decision. The Warden moves
to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the hearing
officer’s decision was based on sufficient evidence and self
defense is not a defense to a disciplinary charge in the prison
environment.
An inmate who is in federal custody may challenge the
execution of his sentence, including the loss of good-time
credits, through a petition under § 2241. Francis v. Maloney,
798 F.3d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting the Supreme Court’s
dicta to the contrary in Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476
(2011)). To succeed, however, the inmate must show that the
discipline was imposed in violation of due process. See
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974).
A. Self Defense
Although the First Circuit has not addressed the issue,
other courts have held that an inmate can be disciplined for
violent conduct even if the inmate acted in self defense. Smith
v. Roal, 494 F. App’x 663, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Jones
v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847-48 (7th Cir. 2011) and Scruggs v.
Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 2007)); Williams v. Kort,
223 F. App’x 95, 100 (3d Cir. 2007); Gates v. Brown, 2015 WL
5971140, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2015); Moore v. Denham, 2015
5 WL 3412874, at *4 (D. Colo. May 27, 2015); Dunn v. Swarthout,
2014 WL 3529915, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2014) (citing
cases); Romm v. Wilson, 2012 WL 6021325, at *5 (E.D. Va. Nov.
30, 2012). Further, an inmate has no constitutional right to
use violence to defend himself or to rely on a theory of self
defense in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Scruggs, 485 F.3d
at 938-39.
Following the cited authority, Addison’s assertion of self
defense does not show that the hearing officer’s decision
violated his due process rights.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The decision of a prison disciplinary hearing officer that
results in the loss of good-time credits must be supported by
“some evidence in the record.” Superintendent, 472 U.S. at 454.
“This standard is met if there was some evidence from which the
conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced.”
Id. at 455 (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated in other
terms, “the relevant question is whether there is any evidence
in the record that could support the conclusion of the
disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56.
Here, the evidence was more than sufficient to support the
hearing officer’s decision. Addison admitted that he grabbed
his cellmate, put him in a full nelson hold, and took him down
6 to the floor. Officer Nurse saw blood on the inmate’s face and
on the glass door of the cell, which showed that Addison’s
actions were hostile and violent enough to cause the other
inmate to bleed. Therefore, the evidence in the record supports
the hearing officer’s decision.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to
dismiss (document no. 9) is granted. All claims in the petition
brought under § 2241 are dismissed.
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________ Joseph DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge
January 8, 2016
cc: Bobby V. Addison, prose Seth R. Aframe, Esq.