Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Wilson

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

May 1, 2019

STACY LADON BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner Stacy Ladon Brown, a federal prisoner then housed at FMC-Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas.[1] After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the related briefs, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the § 2241 petition must be DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND/CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

         Petitioner Brown was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas of knowingly possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 155 months. United States v. Brown, No. 2:07-CR-20005-RTD-1 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 21, 2008).[2] Brown raises two challenges in this § 2241 petition arising from the service of his sentence. First, Brown challenges a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him while he was housed at FCI-El Reno in Oklahoma on April 5, 2017, for violating BOP disciplinary Code 205, Engaging in a Sexual Act, and the resulting penalty of a loss of 27 days of good-conduct time (GCT). (Pet. (doc.1) at 6-7.) Brown alleges the incident report supporting the disciplinary charge was issued as an act of retaliation for his threat to file a complaint against a staff member under the Prison Rape Elimination Act(“PREA”), [3] and he claims the evidence does not support the finding that he committed the prohibited act. (Id. at 7.) Brown also challenges his loss of early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) after being expelled from the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”). (Id. at 2, 7.) He contends the staff's decision to expel him from RDAP was arbitrary and capricious. (Id. at 9.) He requests that this Court compel an investigation into the RDAP treatment team and that both his PREA claim and disciplinary sanction “be consolidated and bifurcated in this case.” (Id. at 8.) He ultimately seeks relief against his sentence in the form of an order directing the BOP to reinstate the twenty-seven days of lost good-conduct time and to grant him one year off his sentence in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). Id. at 8.

         II. EXHAUSTION

         In a traverse/reply to the response, Brown has provided copies of documents relating to his exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Traverse (doc. 13) at 18-25.) Otherwise the parties do not raise or contest the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, the Court does not address exhaustion and turns to the merits of Brown's claims for relief.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Claim Challenging Disciplinary Proceeding and Loss of GCT On March 12, 2017, while incarcerated at FCI-El Reno, Brown received an incident report charging him with Engaging in a Sexual Act, Code 205, for an incident occurring at or around 10:50 a.m. that day. (App. (doc. 12-2) at 2, ¶ 5; 10.)[4] Specifically, the Incident Report recited:

On the above date and time inmate Brown, Stacey Register Number 4700-063 had a female visitor come see him by the name of Rachel [redacted]. While monitoring the Nice Vision Professional Control camera I observed inmate Brown take his visitor's hand and place it on his crotch area. Shortly after that inmate Brown then placed his hand between her legs. Inmate Brown had been told about this kind of behavior in the past.

(App. (doc. 12-2) at 10, § 11.) An investigation of the incident report was completed later that afternoon. (App. (doc. 12-2) at 11, § 27.) Also on March 12, 2017, after advising Brown of his rights, the investigating lieutenant asked Brown if he wished to make a statement. (App. (doc.12-2) at 11, § 24.) The lieutenant reported:

Inmate Brown #04700-063 was advised of his rights and acknowledged he understood his rights. Inmate Brown #04700-063 was given a copy of this Incident Report. Inmate Brown #04700-063 stated, “I grabbed her hand and put it on my dick.” Inmate Brown #04700-063 displayed a fair attitude.

(Id.)

         Brown then appeared before a Unit Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) on March 13, 2017. (App. (doc. 12-2) at 10, § 21.) He provided no statement to the UDC. (App. (doc. 12-2) at 10, § 17.) The UDC referred the charge to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) for final hearing and disposition. (App. (doc. 12-2) at 10, § 18(B).) Brown was given written notice of his rights before the DHO on March 13, 2017. (App. (doc. 12-2) at 17.) Although Brown was provided the opportunity to request witnesses and a staff representative, he declined. (App. (doc. 12-2) 19.)

         Brown appeared before the DHO on April 5, 2017. (App. (Doc. 12-2) at 21, § I(B).) The DHO recorded Brown's statement as, “Her hand was in my lap. Nothing else.” (App. (doc. 12-2) at 21, § III(B).) The DHO considered the reporting employee's account of the incident, Brown's statement, photos taken of the visiting room at the time of the incident, and a supporting memo submitted by the staff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.