United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Abilene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
O'Conner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner Kevin Daniels, a
federal prisoner who was confined at the FCI-Big Spring in
Big Spring, Texas, at the time petition was
filed. In addition to an amended § 2241
petition, the Court has a response from the Respondent with
an Appendix containing the documents related to the
disciplinary case challenged in this proceeding. Amend. Pet.,
ECF No. 10; Response, ECF No.13; Response Appendix (App.),
ECF No. 14. Petitioner also filed a reply. Reply, ECF No. 16.
After considering all of the pleadings and relief sought by
Petitioner, and the applicable law, the Court has concluded
that the § 2241 petition must be denied.
Kevin Daniels was convicted in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas in cause number
1:08-CR-285-LY, of possession with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 851, for which he
received a sentence of imprisonment of 240 months; along with
a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 942(a)(2),
for which he received a concurrent sentence of 120 months.
App. at 4-5. By an Executive Grant of Clemency entered
on the docket of Daniels's criminal case on October 13,
2016, his total imprisonment term was reduced to 175
months. His projected good conduct time release
date is January 27, 2021. See www.bop.gov search of
Kevin Daniels, No. 18178-280, last visited May 2, 2017.
27, 2014, Daniels went to the commissary window at FCI-Big
Spring and was told by a correctional officer that it was not
his scheduled day to be allowed to shop at the commissary.
App., at 12, § 11. The incident report prepared after
the event records that Daniels yelled and cursed at the
officer and threw his shopping list at the officer, striking
the officer's right hand. Id. The incident
report charged Daniels with “assaulting any person,
” in violation of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) disciplinary
code 224, and “insolence toward a staff member, ”
in violation of BOP disciplinary code 312. Id. at
12, §§ 9-10.
investigation of the incident report was conducted later that
day. Id. at 13, § 22. Daniels was advised of
his rights and voluntarily made a statement to the
I did not say that stuff and I didn't assault him in any
way. We were at the Commissary window and I was getting my
list back. The list hit the lip on the window and bounced
back. Then he started yelling at me that I assaulted him and
I needed to give him my ID, which I did right away.
Id. at 13, §§ 23-24. Daniels did not
identify any witnesses. Id. at 13, § 25.
days later, Daniels appeared before a Unit Disciplinary
Committee (UDC) . Id. at 12, § 21.) He also
provided a statement to the UDC regarding the charges, which
was recorded as:
Not true. He did advise me about my shopping days. I said,
“I can't believe this shit” but not towards
him, and as I was grabbing my list from the window to walk
away, it hit the window and bounced back.
Id. at 12, § 17. The UDC then referred the
charge to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) for final
hearing and disposition. Id. at 12, §§
18(B) & 19. The records show that Daniels was provided
advance written notice of his rights before the DHO and was
given the opportunity to request witnesses and a staff
representative. Id. at 15-17. Daniels requested a
staff representative, but he did not request any witnesses.
Id. at 17.
weeks later, on July 25, 2014, Daniels and his staff
representative appeared before the DHO. Id. at 20,
§§ I(B) & II(B). Daniels made a statement to
the DHO, which the DHO recorded as, “He said it
wasn't my day. I said ‘I can't believe this
shit.' The paper came out of my hand through the window.
It hit the window and slid through and hit his hand I
guess.” Id. at 20, § III(B).
considered both the reporting employee's account of the
incident and the statement given by Daniels, but found the
reporting employee's account to be more credible.
Id. at 21, §V. The DHO also concluded that the
fact that Daniels was upset enough to throw the commissary
list at all indicated that he intended to throw it at the
reporting employee and that the paper hit the officer in the
hand constituted an assault. Id. Based on the
evidence presented, the DHO concluded that Daniels violated
disciplinary code 224, assault. Id. at 20, §
IV(B); 21, § V. The DHO described in writing the
evidence relied upon in reaching this conclusion.
Id. at 21, § V. Based on these findings, the
DHO disallowed 27 days of Daniels' good conduct time
credit, suspended his commissary and telephone privileges for
365 days, and directed that he spend 30 days in disciplinary
segregation. Id. at 21, § VI. The DHO suspended
the disciplinary segregation sanction. Id. The DHO
also provided an explanation of the reasons for the
sanctions. Id. at 21, § VII.