United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
E.HUDSON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Henry Shahan, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
("§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 1). Shahan's
claims stem from his conviction within the Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") for the institutional infraction of
possession of stolen property. Specifically, Shahan raises
the following claims for relief:
Claim One: The Discipline Hearing Officer ("DHO")
disallowed twenty-seven days of his good conduct time
("GCT") and failed to provide him with a copy of
the DHO Report in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h) and
BOP Program Statement 5270.09. (§ 2241 Pet. 6; ECF No. 9,
at 5 n.l.)
Claim Two: He was denied due process when "[he] was
forced to serve out the sanctions as imposed by [the] DHO
without the opportunity to appeal the sanctions or the loss
of GCT." (§ 2241 Pet. 7.)
filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment ("Motion for Summary Judgment,"
ECF No. 4),  asserting, inter alia, that
Shahan's claims lack merit. Shahan filed a Response. (ECF No.
9). For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 4) will be granted.
Shahan's § 2241 Petition will be denied because
Shahan's claims are without merit.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party
seeking summary judgment to inform the Court of the basis for
the motion, and to identify the parts of the record that
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the
burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary
judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal
quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly
supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings
and, by citing affidavits or "'depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate
'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.'" Id. (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).
reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court "must
draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party." United States v. Carolina Transformer
Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986)). However, a mere scintilla of evidence will not
preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251
(citing Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. (14
Wall.) 442, 448 (1872)). "[T]here is a preliminary
question for the judge, not whether there is literally no
evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could
properly proceed to find a verdict for the party ... upon
whom the onus of proof is imposed." Id.
(quoting Munson, 81 U.S. at 448). Additionally,
"Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty
to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a
party's opposition to summary judgment." Forsyth
v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915
& n.7 (5th Cir. 1992)); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(3) ("The court need consider only the cited
support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent
submits: (1) the Declaration of Sylvia G. Harris, Legal
Assistant at the Federal Correctional Complex in Petersburg,
Virginia ("FCC Petersburg"), ("Harris
Decl.," ECF No. 5-1); (2) an Incident Report
(id. Attach. 1, ECF No. 5-2); (3) a Notice of
Discipline Hearing Before the DHO form (id. Attach.
2, ECF No. 5-3); (4) an Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing
form (id. Attach. 3, ECF No. 5-4); (5) a DHO Report
(id. Attach. 4, ECF No. 5-5); and (6) records of
Shahan's administrative remedy requests (id.
Attach. 5, ECF No. 5-6).
signed his § 2241 Petition under penalty of perjury.
(§ 2241 Pet. 9.) Additionally, Shahan swore to the
contents of his Response under penalty of perjury. (ECF No.
9, at 13.) Shahan also submitted exhibits with his §
2241 Petition (ECF No. 1-1, at 1-6), and with his Response
(ECF Nos. 9-2 to 9-7).
light of the foregoing principles and submissions, the
following facts are established for purposes of the Motion
for Summary Judgment. The Court draws all permissible
inferences in favor of Shahan.
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT ALLEGATIONS
is currently serving a 120-month sentence imposed by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on December 17, 2015. (Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ¶
1, ECF No. 5 (citing United States v. Shahan, No.
3:15-CR-00202-N-l (N.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2015), ECF No. 35).)
The events giving rise to the instant § 2241 Petition
occurred at FCC Petersburg, and Shahan was incarcerated at
FCC Petersburg when he initiated this action. (§ 2241
Pet. 1; see Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 2.)
August 23, 2017, staff at FCC Petersburg were searching
inmates "during the 6pm compound move." (Harris
Decl. Attach. 1, ECF No. 5-2, at 2.) The officer who
conducted the search reported:
... I was shaking down inmates by the recreation gate. I
called inmate Michael Shahan ... over to check his bag. While
checking inmate Shahan's bag I discovered two stolen
recreation Softball gloves. On one of the softball gloves,
inmate Shahan had his register number written on it. I asked
inmate Shahan where did he get the gloves from and he said he
received the gloves from another inmate. I informed inmate
Shahan that the gloves were stolen. I knew the softball
gloves belong to the recreation department because the tag
was ripped off and it left two holes where we put the leather
tag on the gloves.
(Id.) The Incident Report charging Shahan with
Possession of Stolen Property, in violation of BOP Prohibited
Act 226, was filed later that same day. (Id.)
received a copy of the Incident Report on August 24, 2017.
(Id.) At that time, Shahan was advised of his
institutional rights. (Id. at 3.) Shahan indicated
that he "understood his rights" and that he
"did not wish to request a staff representative."
(Id.) Shahan requested that another inmate be
interviewed regarding the incident. (Id.) On August
24, 2017, staff at FCC Petersburg completed an investigation
into the incident. (Id.) During the investigation,
"when questioned in regards to the [I]ncident [R]eport
[Shahan] stated, 'I got those gloves from another
[i]nmate who transferred out. I didn't know they were
recreation[']s gloves[.]'" (Id.) As
Shahan had requested, another inmate was interviewed, and the
inmate reported: "Shahan didn't know [t]hose gloves
were recreation[']s gloves. Those gloves were thrown in
the hot trash when recreation bought new gloves. Another
inmate [r]emoved those gloves from the hot trash. They were
later given to Shahan when that inmate transferred out of
Petersburg." (Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).) Upon completion of the investigation, the
investigator recommended that the report be forwarded to the
Unit Discipline Committee ("UDC"). (Id.)
August 25, 2017, Shahan appeared before the UDC. (Harris
Decl. ¶ 6 (citation omitted).) During the UDC hearing,
Shahan stated: "I did not know [the gloves] were stolen
due to be[ing] a new arrival to the institution, and hav[ing]
received them [from] other inmates[.] They were discarded to
my acknowledgement." (Id. Attach. l, ECF No.
5-2, at 2 (internal quotation marks omitted).) The UDC
referred the matter to the DHO for further hearing
"[d]ue to the severity of the incident." (Harris
Decl. ¶ 6 (citation omitted).) Later that same day,
Shahan received written notice that the matter was being
referred to the DHO for further hearing. (Id.
Attach. 2, ECF No. 5-3, at 2.) Shahan also received written
notice of his rights at the hearing, and he acknowledged
being advised of his rights. (Id. Attach. 3, ECF No.