Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

100 Fed.Appx. 782 Case 1:03-cv-01959-MSK-PAC

Document 245-10

Filed 09/13/2006

Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3

100 Fed.Appx. 782, 2004 WL 1240933 (C.A.10 (Colo.)) Briefs and Other Related Documents This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter. Please use FIND to look at the applicable circuit court rule before citing this opinion. Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3. (FIND CTA10 Rule 36.3.) United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. C. Eli-Jah Hakeem MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Christopher Hijrah Mitchell, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. HOOD, ADX-Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 04-1002. June 7, 2004. Background: Federal inmate filed petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging prison disciplinary action. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed petition, and inmate appealed. Holding: The Court of Appeals, Ebel, Circuit Judge, held that decision to move inmate to more restrictive unit did not implicate inmate's due process rights. Affirmed. West Headnotes

KeyCite Notes 92 Constitutional Law 92XII Due Process of Law 92k256 Criminal Prosecutions 92k272 Execution of Sentence 92k272(2) k. Imprisonment and Incidents Thereof. Most Cited Cases

310 Prisons KeyCite Notes 310k13 Custody and Control of Prisoners 310k13(5) k. Segregation and Solitary Confinement; Classification. Most Cited Cases Federal prison officials' decision to move inmate to more restrictive unit for one year after finding disciplinary violation did not involve atypical and significant hardship, and thus did not implicate inmate's due process rights, where inmate remained in general prison population, and nature of inmate's confinement did not affect length of his confinement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. *782 C. Elijah Hakeem Muhammad, Florence, CO, pro se. John W. Suthers, U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for RespondentAppellee. Before EBEL, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND JUDGMENTFN*

https://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=WLW6.08&cnt=D...

9/13/2006

100 Fed.Appx. 782 Case 1:03-cv-01959-MSK-PAC

Document 245-10

Filed 09/13/2006

Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3

FN* After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

EBEL, Circuit Judge. **1 C. Eli-jah Hakeem Muhammad ("Petitioner") is a prisoner in custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons at ADX Florence. On February 11, 2002, Petitioner was transferred to a less restrictive unit of the prison as part of the "Step-Down Program." The next day, he used the duress button in his cell to call a correctional officer to determine who was responsible*783 for transporting his property to his current unit. Petitioner was charged with violating Prohibited Act Code (PAC) No. 319, which prohibits "[u]sing any equipment or machinery contrary to instructions or posted safety standards." He was provided written notice of that charge. On February 14, Petitioner appeared before the Unit Disciplinary Commission (UDC), was found guilty of the prohibited act, and was moved back to the more restrictive unit for an additional year. Petitioner, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,FN1 filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the disciplinary action. The district court dismissed his petition, and this appeal followed. Petitioner asserts that he was deprived of due process because he was unaware that his conduct violated PAC No. 319 and because there was insufficient evidence to find Petitioner guilty of the violation. FN1. Based on our review of Petitioner's financial declarations, we grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Due Process Clause guarantees due process only when a person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). Transferring a prison inmate to a more restrictive prison environment ordinarily does not deprive the inmate of liberty. Id. at 225, 96 S.Ct. 2532. However, an inmate may be deprived of liberty if subjected to a restraint that "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). In Sandin v. Conner, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner who was sentenced to 30 days in disciplinary segregation had not demonstrated a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Id. at 475-76, 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293. "Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected perimeters of the sentence imposed by a court of law." Id. at 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293. In this case, Petitioner has not demonstrated that his move from a less restrictive to a more restrictive unit was an "atypical and significant hardship." Petitioner was not placed in special confinement, see Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir.2002), but rather remained in a general prison population, albeit in a more restrictive classification. Thus, Petitioner fails to allege an "atypical and significant hardship." In addition, there is no evidence that the change in the nature of Petitioner's confinement affected the length of his confinement. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated no liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Copr. (C) West 2006 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works C.A.10 (Colo.),2004. Muhammad v. Hood 100 Fed.Appx. 782, 2004 WL 1240933 (C.A.10 (Colo.)) Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) · 04-1002 (Docket) (Jan. 06, 2004) END OF DOCUMENT

https://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=WLW6.08&cnt=D...

9/13/2006

100 Fed.Appx. 782 Case 1:03-cv-01959-MSK-PAC

Document 245-10

Filed 09/13/2006

Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3

(C) 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

https://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=WLW6.08&cnt=D...

9/13/2006