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

appealhearinghabeas corpusdue process
hearinghabeas corpusleasedue processdocketattachment

Related Cases

Prieto-Romero v. Clark
View Case »
Bhiski v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Rubino, Matter of
View Case »
Hernandez-Avalos; U.S. v.
View Case »
Yosd v. Mukasey
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gonzalez v. U.S.

Facts

Victor M. Gonzalez, an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, filed a petition claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully deprived him of good conduct time following a positive alcohol test. Gonzalez argued that the test did not confirm intentional alcohol use and that he was not properly informed of the rules regarding alcohol use. He also claimed that he was denied a full appeal process. The BOP had charged him with a Code 112 violation for alcohol use, which led to the loss of good conduct time and removal from home confinement.

On or about April 24, 2014, Petitioner Victor M. Gonzalez ('Petitioner'), an individual in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) currently housed at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota ('FPC-Duluth'), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. (Petition [Docket No. 1]). Petitioner argues that the BOP unlawfully deprived Petitioner of certain 'good conduct time' and that, as a result thereof, Petitioner faces detention beyond his lawful release date. ( Id .) Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of a BOP disciplinary proceeding that resulted in (1) the determination that Petitioner committed a Code 112 BOP violation, namely, Use of Alcohol; and (2) Petitioner's deprivation of good conduct time.

Issue

Did the Bureau of Prisons provide Victor M. Gonzalez with due process during the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good conduct time?

Did the Bureau of Prisons provide Victor M. Gonzalez with due process during the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good conduct time?

Rule

Due process requires that an inmate facing disciplinary action that may result in the loss of good time credits must receive: (1) advance written notice of the charges, (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.

Due process requires that an inmate facing disciplinary action that may result in the loss of good time credits must receive: (1) advance written notice of the charges, (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.

Analysis

The court found that Gonzalez received adequate due process as he was given advance written notice of the charges, had the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, and received a written statement detailing the evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action. Despite his claims, the court noted that Gonzalez waived certain rights and did not request a staff representative or witnesses during the hearing.

The present record before the Court indicates that the BOP afforded Petitioner due process during the course of the subject disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner received advanced written notice of the charges against him when he received a copy of the written incident report on November 12, 2013; Petitioner expressly declined, in writing, the opportunity to receive official, written notice of the charges 24 hours in advance of the CDC hearing. (Buege Decl. [Docket No. 5], Attachment D). Petitioner received a Center Discipline Committee hearing on November 13, 2013, complete with advance notice of the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence on his behalf at the hearing. Petitioner twice declined the opportunity to have a staff representative appointed and twice declined the opportunity to call witnesses. Finally, following the hearing, the present record before the Court indicates that Petitioner received a copy of the written CDC decision, specifically setting forth the specific evidence on which the Committee relied in arriving at its decision and its reasons for imposing the chosen sanctions.

Conclusion

The court recommended that Gonzalez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner Victor M. Gonzalez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Docket No. 1], be DENIED and this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.

Who won?

The United States, as the court recommended denying Gonzalez's petition based on the finding that due process was afforded during the disciplinary proceedings.

The United States, as the court recommended denying Gonzalez's petition based on the finding that due process was afforded during the disciplinary proceedings.

You must be