NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 19-1753 __________
KAREEM HASSAN MILLHOUSE, Appellant
v.
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-02444) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 15, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 21, 2019) ___________
OPINION * ___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Appellant Kareem Millhouse appeals the decision of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his habeas petition filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
Millhouse is an inmate currently confined at the United States Penitentiary in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”). While incarcerated at USP McCreary in
Kentucky, Millhouse was charged with a Code 104 violation for possession of a weapon.
The written charge was issued to Millhouse after a prison officer responded to an
inmate’s medical emergency in Housing Unit 5B, cell 112. After the afflicted inmate was
removed from the cell, the officer conducted a cell search for any drug-related items that
might have contributed to the medical emergency; the officer found a homemade weapon
hidden inside a slit near the middle of the mattress facing the wall side. The officer
determined that the afflicted inmate did not live in that cell but that “Rodney” Millhouse,
identified by his inmate number, was the sole occupant of cell 112.
At a hearing before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”), Millhouse stated that
the weapon was not his and noted the other inmate’s presence in his cell. He also stated
that he had received the mattress two weeks earlier. The DHO considered the evidence,
including Millhouse’s statements, the incident report, the written statement by the officer
who discovered the weapon, and a photograph of the weapon. Millhouse had requested
before the hearing that surveillance video be reviewed. The DHO did not personally
view the footage but noted another officer’s findings that the footage was inconclusive
because it did not show the cell’s interior. The DHO found that Millhouse had possessed 2 the weapon, constructively, in his assigned cell, explaining that Millhouse had the most
control over his cell’s contents as the sole occupant. Further, the DHO rejected the
suggestion that the inmate with the medical emergency might have put the weapon there,
finding that it did not seem reasonable that someone in that condition would have been
able to hide the weapon where it was found. The DHO sanctioned Millhouse with
forfeiture of forty-one days of good conduct time, fourteen days of disciplinary
segregation, and three months loss of commissary privilege. Millhouse’s administrative
appeals were unsuccessful.
Millhouse then filed his § 2241 habeas petition, claiming due process violations in
his disciplinary proceedings concerning (1) the failure to provide twenty-four hours’
notice of the charge against him; (2) the failure to provide a copy of the incident report
within twenty-four hours of the incident; (3) the DHO’s failure to review the camera
surveillance footage, as requested; and (4) the DHO’s reliance on an inaccurate incident
report, in that it misstated Millhouse’s first name as “Rodney” in the portion of the report
describing the incident. Millhouse also argued that the DHO’s decision was incorrect
because Millhouse was innocent of the charge brought against him. As relief, Millhouse
sought restoration of his good conduct time and removal of the incident report from his
record. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the District Court denied the habeas
petition.
This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief de 3 novo, but we review factual findings for clear error. See Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d
310, 314 (3d Cir. 2007).
Federal prisoners have a liberty interest in statutory good time credits. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1); Vega, 493 F.3d
at 317 n.4. Thus, a prison disciplinary hearing that may result in the loss of good conduct
time must provide the following minimum due process safeguards, in a proceeding before
an impartial decision-making body: (1) at least twenty-four hours of advance written
notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence; (3) assistance from an inmate representative if the charge involves complex
issues or if the prisoner is illiterate; and (4) a written decision explaining the evidence
relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67.
Further, the disciplinary decision must be supported by “some evidence” in the record.
See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
There appears to be no dispute that Millhouse received due process in accordance
with Wolff in that he was provided with the incident report several days in advance of the
DHO hearing, the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence, the opportunity to have
inmate representation, and a written decision containing the reasons for the decision. In
support of his due process argument, Millhouse merely repeats his allegations of other
errors, including that the Warden failed to provide a copy of the incident report within
twenty-four hours of the February 27, 2018 incident itself. The incident report was
provided to Millhouse on March 1, 2018, with the notation that it had been suspended 4 pending FBI referral for possible prosecution. Under the Federal Bureau of Prisons’
codification of its disciplinary procedures at 28 C.F.R. § 541, et seq., an inmate
“ordinarily” receives the incident report within twenty-four hours of when prison staff
becomes aware of the incident. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). But the regulations do not
mandate that timing, and neither does Wolff. The DHO explained the reason for the
delay and concluded that Millhouse’s ability to defend against the charge at the hearing,
which was held on March 6, 2018, had not been hindered. Millhouse does not argue that
he was prejudiced by the delay to support a due process claim. See Wilson v. Ashcroft,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 19-1753 __________
KAREEM HASSAN MILLHOUSE, Appellant
v.
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-02444) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 15, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 21, 2019) ___________
OPINION * ___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Appellant Kareem Millhouse appeals the decision of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his habeas petition filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
Millhouse is an inmate currently confined at the United States Penitentiary in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”). While incarcerated at USP McCreary in
Kentucky, Millhouse was charged with a Code 104 violation for possession of a weapon.
The written charge was issued to Millhouse after a prison officer responded to an
inmate’s medical emergency in Housing Unit 5B, cell 112. After the afflicted inmate was
removed from the cell, the officer conducted a cell search for any drug-related items that
might have contributed to the medical emergency; the officer found a homemade weapon
hidden inside a slit near the middle of the mattress facing the wall side. The officer
determined that the afflicted inmate did not live in that cell but that “Rodney” Millhouse,
identified by his inmate number, was the sole occupant of cell 112.
At a hearing before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”), Millhouse stated that
the weapon was not his and noted the other inmate’s presence in his cell. He also stated
that he had received the mattress two weeks earlier. The DHO considered the evidence,
including Millhouse’s statements, the incident report, the written statement by the officer
who discovered the weapon, and a photograph of the weapon. Millhouse had requested
before the hearing that surveillance video be reviewed. The DHO did not personally
view the footage but noted another officer’s findings that the footage was inconclusive
because it did not show the cell’s interior. The DHO found that Millhouse had possessed 2 the weapon, constructively, in his assigned cell, explaining that Millhouse had the most
control over his cell’s contents as the sole occupant. Further, the DHO rejected the
suggestion that the inmate with the medical emergency might have put the weapon there,
finding that it did not seem reasonable that someone in that condition would have been
able to hide the weapon where it was found. The DHO sanctioned Millhouse with
forfeiture of forty-one days of good conduct time, fourteen days of disciplinary
segregation, and three months loss of commissary privilege. Millhouse’s administrative
appeals were unsuccessful.
Millhouse then filed his § 2241 habeas petition, claiming due process violations in
his disciplinary proceedings concerning (1) the failure to provide twenty-four hours’
notice of the charge against him; (2) the failure to provide a copy of the incident report
within twenty-four hours of the incident; (3) the DHO’s failure to review the camera
surveillance footage, as requested; and (4) the DHO’s reliance on an inaccurate incident
report, in that it misstated Millhouse’s first name as “Rodney” in the portion of the report
describing the incident. Millhouse also argued that the DHO’s decision was incorrect
because Millhouse was innocent of the charge brought against him. As relief, Millhouse
sought restoration of his good conduct time and removal of the incident report from his
record. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the District Court denied the habeas
petition.
This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief de 3 novo, but we review factual findings for clear error. See Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d
310, 314 (3d Cir. 2007).
Federal prisoners have a liberty interest in statutory good time credits. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1); Vega, 493 F.3d
at 317 n.4. Thus, a prison disciplinary hearing that may result in the loss of good conduct
time must provide the following minimum due process safeguards, in a proceeding before
an impartial decision-making body: (1) at least twenty-four hours of advance written
notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence; (3) assistance from an inmate representative if the charge involves complex
issues or if the prisoner is illiterate; and (4) a written decision explaining the evidence
relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67.
Further, the disciplinary decision must be supported by “some evidence” in the record.
See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
There appears to be no dispute that Millhouse received due process in accordance
with Wolff in that he was provided with the incident report several days in advance of the
DHO hearing, the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence, the opportunity to have
inmate representation, and a written decision containing the reasons for the decision. In
support of his due process argument, Millhouse merely repeats his allegations of other
errors, including that the Warden failed to provide a copy of the incident report within
twenty-four hours of the February 27, 2018 incident itself. The incident report was
provided to Millhouse on March 1, 2018, with the notation that it had been suspended 4 pending FBI referral for possible prosecution. Under the Federal Bureau of Prisons’
codification of its disciplinary procedures at 28 C.F.R. § 541, et seq., an inmate
“ordinarily” receives the incident report within twenty-four hours of when prison staff
becomes aware of the incident. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). But the regulations do not
mandate that timing, and neither does Wolff. The DHO explained the reason for the
delay and concluded that Millhouse’s ability to defend against the charge at the hearing,
which was held on March 6, 2018, had not been hindered. Millhouse does not argue that
he was prejudiced by the delay to support a due process claim. See Wilson v. Ashcroft,
350 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding, in the immigration context, that “there would
be no due process violation in the absence of prejudice”).
Millhouse also restates his argument that he did not receive adequate advance
notice of the charge on which the DHO found him guilty. Specifically, he argued that he
was charged with a Code 104 possession of a weapon violation but was found guilty of
constructive possession, asserting that no such Code violation exists. However, the DHO
found him guilty of Code 104 possession of a weapon based on a theory of constructive
possession. That is, Millhouse was charged with and found guilty of a Code 104
violation, and therefore, there is no defect in notice. Cf. Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140,
145-47 (3d Cir. 2013) (upholding application of the constructive possession theory in
prison disciplinary proceedings).
To the extent that Millhouse argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
the DHO’s findings without the DHO’s personal viewing of the requested camera 5 footage, the argument has no merit. The DHO’s decision, quoted in pertinent part in the
District Court’s memorandum, meets the due process requirement of being supported by
“some evidence in the record” under Hill. See District Court Mar. 26, 2019 Mem. at 10-
11. Millhouse asserts his innocence of the charge and that Hill does not apply to him, but
we reject this argument. The District Court was correct to apply Hill in evaluating
Millhouse’s due process claims concerning his prison disciplinary proceedings. This
standard is minimal and “does not require examination of the entire record, independent
assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.” Id. Rather, the
relevant inquiry “is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56. The evidence here
included a photograph of the weapon, the reporting officer’s written statement detailing
the situation concerning the other inmate with the medical emergency, the reason for the
random (unannounced) cell search, the manner in which the weapon had been concealed,
a detailed description of the homemade weapon, and the circumstance of Millhouse being
the sole occupant of the cell. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the
evidence was sufficient to support the DHO’s decision. See Denny, 708 F.3d at 145
(explaining that a reviewing court “need only find that the DHO’s decision had ‘some
basis in fact’ in order to affirm the decision as comporting with the Due Process Clause,”
citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 456).
Finally, to the extent that Millhouse claims that his due process rights were
violated because the incident report incorrectly referred to him as “Rodney” Millhouse, 6 we discern no clear error in the District Court’s finding that the reference in the report’s
narrative description was a typographical error. The description specified that cell 112’s
sole occupant was Millhouse, noting his assigned inmate register number. That register
number matches with Millhouse’s identification, with his correct first name, noted at the
top of the incident report. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that no due
process violation arose from the first name error contained in the description of the
incident.
Based on the foregoing, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.