United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. JORDAN III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jeremy Williams is a federal inmate who was formerly
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo
City, Mississippi (“FCC-Yazoo”). He brought this
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison
disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty and
sanctioned with a loss of good-conduct time. Williams moved
for judgment , and United States Magistrate Judge F.
Keith Ball entered a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) , in which he recommended that
three days of Williams's good-conduct time be restored
but that all other relief be denied. The Court finds that the
R&R should be adopted but will address the specific
issues Williams raised in his Objection .
FCC-Yazoo officer found $150.00 in Williams's boot,
leading a Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”) to
find that Williams violated section 303 of the Bureau of
Prisons' Inmate Discipline Program, which prohibits
possession of currency. The DHO sanctioned Williams to
forfeiture of 30 days of good-conduct time, a 13-day
disallowance of good-conduct credit available for the year,
30 days of disciplinary segregation, a monetary fine of $100,
and loss of telephone and visitation privileges for 18
§ 2241 petition, Williams essentially claimed that
prison officials violated his rights in various ways related
to the investigation and prosecution of the charged offense
and that the DHO's sanction violated both the applicable
regulations and Bureau of Prisons' Program Statement.
Judge Ball rejected most of that in his R&R, but he did
recommend that the Court restore three days of forfeited
filed an Objection  to the R&R, making three
arguments. First, Williams says that because he did not
commit more than one moderate-level offense, the DHO could
not impose a sanction under 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1,
specifically the loss of good-conduct time. Second, he argues
that the DHO failed to consider mitigating factors in his
case that would have permitted a lesser sanction. Finally, he
contends that the DHO incorrectly found that the offense was
highly aggravated. These issues are now ripe for review, and
the Court has jurisdiction to consider them.
begin, Williams made no objection to Judge Ball's finding
that “some evidence” supports the DHO's
ruling that Williams committed the offense. See
R&R  at 4-5 (quoting Superintendent, Mass. Corr.
Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (establishing
standard of review for prison disciplinary rulings)). And
Respondent did not object to the finding that three days of
good-conduct time should be restored. Those recommendations
are adopted as unopposed.
to Williams's objections regarding the lost time,
sanctions for inmate disciplinary infractions are found in
two sources: 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 and the Bureau of
Prisons' Program Statement 5270.09 (2011). Both offer
various penalties based on the severity of the violation, and
they share the same introductory language:
(a) Prohibited acts. The list of prohibited acts are divided
into four separate categories based on severity: Greatest;
High; Moderate; and Low. We describe the prohibited acts in
Table 1 - Prohibited Acts and Available Sanctions . . . .
(b) Available sanctions. The list of available sanctions for
committing prohibited acts is listed in Table 1 - Prohibited
Acts and Available Sanctions.
28 C.F.R. § 541.3(a)-(b); Program Statement 5270.09,
the DHO found that Williams violated section 303 of the
Inmate Discipline Program, which is considered a
“Moderate Severity Level Prohibited Act[ ].” 28
C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1. And section 541.3(b)(3) of the
Program Statement provides the available sanctions for such
Moderate Severity Level Offenses. The DHO imposes at least
one sanction A through M [from Table 1], . . . . Sanction B.1
ordinarily must be imposed for a . . . PLRA inmate [i.e., an
inmate sentenced for an offense committed on or after ...