UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bobby V. Addison

v. Civil No. 15-cv-159-JD Opinion No.

Warden E. L. Tatum, Jr.

O R D E R

Bobby V. Addison, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to

to overturn the results of a

prison disciplinary proceeding, which revoked good-time credits

as a penalty for fighting. The Warden moves to dismiss the case

on the grounds that the hearing officer’s decision properly did

not credit Addison’s self-defense argument and was supported by

sufficient evidence. Addison did not respond to the motion to

dismiss.

Standard of Review

A complaint will be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) if the factual allegations, taken in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff, fail to show that the

plaintiff may recover under a plausible claim. Lister v. Bank

of Am., N.A.,

(1st Cir. 2015). To decide a

motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court considers any documents

submitted with or incorporated into the complaint.

Background

Addison was incarcerated in the Special Housing Unit at the

Federal Correctional Facility in Fairton, New Jersey, when the

incident at issue in this case occurred.1 Addison alleges that

on May 15, 2014, officers put another inmate in Addison’s cell

as his cellmate. When Addison got up fifteen minutes later to

use the toilet, the new cellmate swung at him. Addison got

behind the other inmate and took him down to the floor in a

“full nelson hold.” While holding down his cellmate on the

floor, Addison kicked the door and yelled that the other inmate

had swung at him.

Officer C. Nurse was conducting rounds and found Addison

holding the other inmate in a “full nelson hold.” Addison was

yelling: “This guy is swinging on me! I had to defend myself.”

Nurse also saw blood on the other inmate’s face and on the door

glass.

Addison was charged with fighting, offense code 201. A

hearing was held on May 29, 2014. The discipline hearing

officer’s report states that notice of the charge was given to

Addison on May 16 and that Addison was advised of his rights for

the hearing on May 21. Addison waived his right to a staff

1Addison is now held at the Federal Correctional Facility in Berlin, New Hampshire.

2 representative for the hearing and did not request any witnesses

for the hearing.

At the hearing, Addison admitted that the incident

occurred. He stated that the other inmate was only in the cell

for fifteen minutes when the inmate swung at him as Addison got

up to use the bathroom. Addison also stated that he put the

other inmate in a “full-nelson” to restrain him. Addison denied

the charge of fighting on the ground that he was only trying to

restrain the other inmate.

The hearing officer found that Addison “did commit the

prohibited act of Fighting With Another Person, Code 201.” By

way of explanation, the hearing officer stated:

You admitted being [in] a hostile physical altercation with inmate [name omitted] but denied any wrong doing. You offered as your defense that you were just trying to restrain inmate [name omitted]. The DHO took into consideration your statement and gave little weight to your defense. The prohibited act of fighting is committed when an inmate engages in a hostile, verbal or physical altercation with another person. The evidence indicates you put inmate [name omitted] in a full-nelson hold after he tried to punch you. Self- defense is not a plausible defense to fighting in the correctional setting. You chose to become an active participant in a hostile altercation. You are responsible for your own actions.

Doc. no. 1, attachment, at 4. The discipline imposed was

disciplinary segregation for thirty days and disallowing twenty-

seven days of good conduct time. The decision was delivered to

Addison on October 6, 2014.

3 Addison appealed the decision, arguing that the charge

against him should have been brought under Code 224 instead of

201 because Code 224 is “a lesser level of violation.” Addison

also argued that the new cellmate was classified as “Category

III mental health” and should not have been put in his cell and

that the hearing officer erred in ruling that self-defense was

not a plausible defense to the charge. The appeal was denied by

the regional director because the hearing officer’s decision was

based on the greater weight of the evidence. Addison then

appealed to the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

and states in his petition filed here that the appeal was not

answered.

Discussion

In his petition seeking relief under § 2241, Addison

indicates that he is challenging the discipline imposed but did

not complete the sections of the petition for stating the

grounds. Addison attached to the petition a document titled:

“Tort Claim under FTCA and

of Petitioner Bobby

Addison.”2 Addison argues in the attached document that he did

not commit the violation as charged because he restrained the

other inmate in self defense and that there was insufficient

2Addison’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act has been docketed as a separate case, and therefore that claim is not considered here.

4 evidence to support the disciplinary decision. The Warden moves

to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the hearing

officer’s decision was based on sufficient evidence and self

defense is not a defense to a disciplinary charge in the prison

environment.

An inmate who is in federal custody may challenge the

execution of his sentence, including the loss of good-time

credits, through a petition under § 2241. Francis v. Maloney,

(1st Cir. 2015) (noting the Supreme Court’s

dicta to the contrary in Pepper v. United States,

(2011)). To succeed, however, the inmate must show that the

discipline was imposed in violation of due process. See

Superintendent v. Hill,

(1985); Wolff v.

McDonnell,

(1974).

A. Self Defense

Although the First Circuit has not addressed the issue,

other courts have held that an inmate can be disciplined for

violent conduct even if the inmate acted in self defense. Smith

v. Roal,

(7th Cir. 2012) (citing Jones

v. Cross,

(7th Cir. 2011) and Scruggs v.

Jordan,

(7th Cir. 2007)); Williams v. Kort,

(3d Cir. 2007); Gates v. Brown,

, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2015); Moore v. Denham, 2015

, at *4 (D. Colo. May 27, 2015); Dunn v. Swarthout,

, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2014) (citing

cases); Romm v. Wilson,

, at *5 (E.D. Va. Nov.

30, 2012). Further, an inmate has no constitutional right to

use violence to defend himself or to rely on a theory of self

defense in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Scruggs,

.

Following the cited authority, Addison’s assertion of self

defense does not show that the hearing officer’s decision

violated his due process rights.

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The decision of a prison disciplinary hearing officer that

results in the loss of good-time credits must be supported by

“some evidence in the record.” Superintendent,

.

“This standard is met if there was some evidence from which the

conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). Stated in other

terms, “the relevant question is whether there is any evidence

in the record that could support the conclusion of the

disciplinary board.”

.

Here, the evidence was more than sufficient to support the

hearing officer’s decision. Addison admitted that he grabbed

his cellmate, put him in a full nelson hold, and took him down

6 to the floor. Officer Nurse saw blood on the inmate’s face and

on the glass door of the cell, which showed that Addison’s

actions were hostile and violent enough to cause the other

inmate to bleed. Therefore, the evidence in the record supports

the hearing officer’s decision.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to

dismiss (document no. 9) is granted. All claims in the petition

brought under § 2241 are dismissed.

The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and

close the case.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Joseph DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

January 8, 2016

cc: Bobby V. Addison, prose Seth R. Aframe, Esq.

7