Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

precedenthabeas corpusdue processrespondent
lawyerprecedenthearinghabeas corpuswilldocketrespondent

Related Cases

R-A-V-P-, Matter of
View Case »
Osorio-Martinez v. AG
View Case »
Mathews v. Diaz
View Case »
Ying Fong v. Ashcroft
View Case »
University of Miami; Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v., Miller Sch. of Medical
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Duckett, Matter of

Facts

Terril Monteiz Duckett is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241, contesting the disciplinary sanctions he received. The court reviewed his petition, the Respondent's response, and Duckett's reply brief, leading to a decision on the matter.

Terril Monteiz Duckett is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Duckett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 in which he challenges the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him.

Issue

Did Duckett receive the procedural protections he was entitled to during the disciplinary process, and was there sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary decision?

Did Duckett receive the procedural protections he was entitled to during the disciplinary process, and was there sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary decision?

Rule

Inmates are entitled to procedural protections during disciplinary proceedings, including advance notice of charges, the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, and a written decision explaining the grounds for the determination of guilt.

Pursuant to long-standing Supreme Court precedent, Duckett was entitled to advance notice of the charges against him, the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses in his defense, and a written decision explaining the grounds used to determine his guilt.

Analysis

The court determined that Duckett had received the procedural protections required by law, including advance notice of the charges and the opportunity to present evidence. The court also noted that Duckett acknowledged receiving these protections and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the disciplinary decision, meeting the low threshold established by precedent.

Here, Duckett does not dispute that he received each of these procedural protections. Indeed, as the Respondent points out, Duckett has acknowledged that he received notice of the charges against him in advance of both a unit disciplinary committee hearing and a hearing before a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO).

Conclusion

The court denied Duckett's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the case, concluding that he had not established a violation of his due process rights.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Duckett's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Doc. # 1) is DENIED ; (2) This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket; and (3) The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment.

Who won?

The Respondent prevailed in the case because the court found that Duckett had received the necessary procedural protections and that there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary decision.

The Respondent prevailed in the case because the court found that Duckett had received the necessary procedural protections and that there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary decision.

You must be