Opinion
Civil Action 22-90-DLB
02-07-2023
LUIS ANTONIO MERCADO-ROSARIO PETITIONER v. WARDEN LEMASTER RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Luis Antonio Mercado-Rosario is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Mercado-Rosario 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. (Doc. # 1). The Court has fully reviewed Mercado-Rosario's petition, as well as the Respondent's response (Doc. # 7). Thus, this matter is now ripe for a decision.
Mercado-Rosario has not shown that he is entitled to a restoration of the good conduct time that he lost. As an initial matter, Mercado-Rosario has not demonstrated in any clear way that he was denied the various procedural protections that he was due. Under the law, Mercado-Rosario 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. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974).
Here, the record reflects that Mercado-Rosario received each of these procedural protections. Indeed, as the Respondent has established, Mercado-Rosario received notice of the charges against him on April 10, 2022, in advance of both an April 13, 2022 unit disciplinary committee hearing and an April 14, 2022 hearing before a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO). (See Doc. # 7 at 2-3; Doc. # 7-1 at ¶¶ 4-6). The Respondent has also demonstrated that Mercado-Rosario was given the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses in his defense but chose not to do so, other than offering his own brief statement. (See Doc. # 7 at 3-4; Doc. # 7-1 at ¶ 6). The record also shows that prison officials provided Mercado-Rosario with a written decision thoroughly explaining the grounds used to determine his guilt of a Code 108 offense (i.e., possession of a hazardous tool). (See Doc. # 7 at 4; Doc. # 7-1 at ¶ 9). Thus, Mercado-Rosario has not established that his due process rights were violated.
The only remaining question then is whether there was “some evidence” in the record to support the DHO's decision in this case. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Selby v. Caruso, 734 F.3d 554, 558-59 (6th Cir. 2013). This is a very low threshold. After all, the Court does not examine the entire record or independently assess the credibility of witnesses. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. Instead, the Court merely considers “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56 (emphasis added); see also Higgs v. Bland, 888 F.2d 443, 448-49 (6th Cir. 1989).
In this case, there was certainly some evidence in the record to support the DHO's decision. Indeed, the DHO's report details the evidence linking Mercado-Rosario to the offense in question, including but not limited to the statements of a correctional officer indicating that he found a cellphone and charger in Mercado-Rosario's assigned cubicle. (See Doc. # 7-1 at 18-19). This evidence was clearly enough to meet the very low threshold applicable here, see Hill, 472 U.S. at 454, and Mercado-Rosario's various arguments simply do not warrant a different result.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Mercado-Rosario'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.