Swindle v. Ma'at

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 22, 2021
• Docket: 21-30371
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-30371 Document: 00516103943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED November 22, 2021 No. 21-30371 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

Adam Shane Swindle,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

S. Ma'at,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:21-CV-400

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Adam Shane Swindle, federal prisoner # 32320-001, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his disciplinary conviction for attempted mail abuse and the resulting loss of good time credits. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found that Swindle attempted to have Cellmate and Convict

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-30371 Document: 00516103943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021

No. 21-30371

Services send an item to an address in Alabama instead of to his prison address, which would have circumvented the prison’s mail monitoring procedures. The district court concluded that the prison disciplinary procedures afforded Swindle due process and that some evidence supported the conviction. On appeal, Swindle argues that there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that he committed attempted mail abuse. “[P]rison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned only where there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison officials.” Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). We review de novo whether there is “some evidence” in the record to support the decision. Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2007). Here, Swindle does not dispute that he attempted to have an item sent to a non- prison address, and he admitted that conduct during the hearing before the DHO. Therefore, there was “some evidence in the record to support the disciplinary decision.” Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874, 876 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 (Table 1). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.