Daniel Jenkins v. FCI Berlin, Warden

2022 DNH 028

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 11, 2022
• Docket: 20-cv-803-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Jenkins

v. Case No. 20-cv-803-PB Opinion No. 2022 DNH 028 FCI Berlin, Warden

ORDER

Daniel Jenkins petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc.

No. 1) in this Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, while incarcerated

at the Federal Correctional Institution in Berlin, New

Hampshire. Jenkins asks that I order the Warden to expunge a

disciplinary offense for possessing a cell phone from his prison

record. Jenkins lost forty-one days of good conduct time due to

that offense. In a comprehensive prior order (Doc. No. 19), I

denied Jenkins’s motion for summary judgment on his claims (Doc.

No. 7). The Warden has filed both an initial motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 15) and a supplemental motion (Doc. No. 21)

on all claims. 1 At issue are Jenkins’s claims that (1) there was

insufficient evidence to support the disciplinary finding,

(2) the hearing officer violated his due process rights by

denying his request to present witnesses, (3) the hearing

officer violated his due process rights by not providing him

1 I rely on the same uncontested factual background as in my prior order. See Doc. No. 19, 2-6.

1 with a forensic report about the cell phone, and (4) the hearing

officer did not permit him to present a written document

outlining his defenses.

The warden is entitled to summary judgment even when I

construe the record “in the light most flattering to” Jenkins as

the nonmoving party. See Thompson v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc.,

989 F.3d 135, 141 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Theidon v. Harvard

Univ., 948 F.3d 477, 494 (1st Cir. 2020)). As I explained in

detail in my prior order, there is enough undisputed evidence of

Jenkins’s constructive possession of contraband to meet the

limited “some evidence” standard for prison disciplinary

hearings, see Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S.

445, 454 (1985), and he has put forward no evidence that

additional witnesses, a cell phone forensic report, or

consideration of his written document would have a material

impact on the hearing officer’s finding. See Street v. Rakiey,

989 F.2d 484 (1st Cir. 1993) (unpublished table decision).

The Warden’s motion succeeds because there is “no genuine

dispute as to any material fact” in the record, and the Warden

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Theidon, 948 F.3d

at 494 (quoting Johnson v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 714 F.3d 48,

52). Accordingly, I will grant the Warden’s motions for summary

judgment (Doc. Nos. 15, 21).

2 SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

March 11, 2022

cc: Counsel of Record