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.

Mitchell v. Watson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 5, 2017

William Mitchell, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Watson, et al., Respondents.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Honorable Leo I. Brisbois United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a referral for report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.1, and upon Petitioner William Mitchell's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Docket No. 1].

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Docket No. 1], be DENIED, and this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

         The following is taken from the May 11, 2016, Report and Recommendation issued by Chief United States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which was subsequently adopted by United States District Judge Richard A. Jones. See, Mitchell v. Ingram, No. 2:15-cv-1290-RAJ, Docket Nos. 27 and 28 (W.D. Wa. 2016).

On November 19, 2014, petitioner [William Mitchell] was indicted in this district on multiple counts of bank robbery and interference with commerce by robbery. On November 28, 2014, petitioner was ordered detained pending trial and he was confined at FDC SeaTac for the duration of his criminal proceedings in this Court .....
On February 25, 2015, petitioner was involved in a fight with another inmate at FCD SeaTac. When staff attempted to break up the fight, petitioner elbowed an officer in the face with his elbow. Petitioner was charged with two violations: (1) fighting with another person, and (2) assaulting another person. A hearing was held before a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) on April 13, 2015, and petitioner was found to have committed the prohibited acts as charged. As a result of this finding, petitioner was given 60 days in disciplinary segregation and 27 days of good conduct time (“GCT”) were disallowed.
On May 12, 2015, petitioner filed an administrative remedy appeal challenging the disallowance of the 27 days GCT on the grounds that the DHO did not hold petitioner's hearing for over 40 days, and the DHO failed to provide petitioner with a copy of the report reflecting the DHO's decision. The Western Regional Director for the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) responded to petitioner's appeal on June 8, 2015, advising that the Unit Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) and the DHO were being directed to rehear the matter. [Petitioner] was further advised that if he was dissatisfied with the response, he could appeal to the Office of General Counsel.
On June 9, 2015, petitioner filed a second administrative remedy appeal with the Western Regional Office of the BOP challenging the same disciplinary matter, but that appeal was rejected on June 11, 2015, for failure of petitioner to provide necessary information in conjunction with the appeal.
[Petitioner entered a guilty plea in his underlying criminal case on June 16, 2015.]
The DHO reheard the matter on June 29, 2015. Petitioner refused to attend the rehearing because the rehearing was to be conducted by the same DHO who conducted the original hearing. Petitioner's designated staff representative was, however, present at the hearing. The DHO once again found that petitioner had committed the charged prohibited acts and imposed the same sanctions. A copy of the DHO report for the rehearing was sent to petitioner via the institutional mailroom on July 16, 2015, but petitioner claimed he never received the report. Another copy of the report was personally delivered to petitioner on August 20, 2015[, ] by his staff representative.

Mitchell, No. 2:15-cv-1290-RAJ, Docket No. 27 (W.D. Wa. 2016) (citations omitted).

         On September 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Id. at Docket No. 6. Therein, he alleged that “he was deprived of good time credits without due process of law” by the aforementioned disciplinary proceedings. Id. at Docket No. 27, p. 1.

         On January 22, 2016, while his petition for habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington was pending, Petitioner was sentenced to 127 ...


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.