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.

Morris v. Entzel

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

October 29, 2019

TODD MORRIS, Petitioner,
v.
FREDERICK ENTZEL, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ROBERT W. TRUMBLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On December 17, 2018, Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at Hazelton FCI, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1.[1] On August 7, 2019, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss and memorandum in support thereof with exhibits attached thereto. ECF Nos. 13, 14, 14-1. A Roseboro notice was issued August 8, 2019, however, Petitioner has not filed a response thereto. ECF No. 15.

         The matter is now before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR PL P 2. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. Prison Disciplinary Proceedings

         Petitioner, Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate number 24388-016, is currently incarcerated at Hazelton FCI serving a life sentence following his conviction for first degree murder in the District of Columbia Superior Court case number 2001 FEL 001282. https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.7.1?x=DxFFvnnIJEEtYvu6Jl*umqVz* lZ50sWRq2p0EiDFzI54-uBNFEZkBOmAi*chAV13rKxvbF4aM*hhAspfpFnh6g

         On June 22, 2018, while Petitioner was incarcerated at Hazelton FCI, he was charged in incident report number 3137834, with “possession of drugs”, in violation of Code 113. ECF No. 14-1 at 2. The Discipline Hearing Officer who conducted the hearings filed a declaration as part of Respondent's motion. ECF No. 14-1. Petitioner was found guilty of the violation at a hearing conducted on July 26, 2018. Id. at 2. As a result of his conviction, Petitioner was sanctioned to one day of disciplinary segregation, 15 days of disciplinary segregated suspended pending 180 days of clear conduct, 180 days loss of commissary, 180 days loss of email and 180 days loss of phone. Id. Upon administrative review, incident report number 3137834 was remanded to the institution for rehearing, which was conducted on July 2, 2019. At that rehearing, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding, and the incident report was expunged. Id. The DHO declared that he “reviewed Petitioner's custody classification after the expungement. . . and found the expungement did not change his custody classification.” Id.

         B. Instant § 2241 Petition

         As his sole ground for relief, Petitioner claims that BOP staff failed to timely provide him with a copy of his Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”) report, which failure he alleges violated his due process rights. ECF No. 1 at 5. In his petition, Petitioner did not indicate whether he had presented or exhausted his claims through the prison's internal grievance procedure, although he later stated that staff actions prevented him from pursuing any administrative remedies. ECF No. 1 at 7 - 8. Petitioner requests his conviction for violation of Code 113 be vacated and expunged from his central file, and that his custody level score be recalculated. Id. at 8.

         Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on August 7, 2019, which asserted that Petitioner had received the relief requested in his petition, and that accordingly, the matter was moot. ECF No. 13. Although Petitioner was advised of his right to file a response via the Roseboro notice filed August 8, 2019, for which service was accepted on August 12, 2019, Petitioner has not filed any further pleadings. ECF No. 15.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Review of Petitions for Relief

         Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's local rules, this Court is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. This Court is charged with screening Petitioner's case to determine if “it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.

         B. Pro ...


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.