United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Patton, Jr. is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary
(USP) - McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without a
lawyer, Patton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Respondent then filed
a response to that petition, and Patton filed a reply. This
matter is therefore ripe for a decision from this Court. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Patton's
September 13, 2016, while Patton was incarcerated at the USP
- Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky, prison officials issued Patton
an incident report, charging him with assaulting another
inmate. Prison officials then amended the incident report and
added a second charge- possession of a weapon. Shortly
thereafter, on October 11, 2016, a disciplinary hearing
officer (DHO) held a hearing and concluded that Patton had
committed the charged offenses. As a result, the DHO ordered
that Patton lose 56 days of good conduct time. The DHO also
imposed other sanctions on Patton, including time in
disciplinary segregation and the loss of commissary and phone
appealed the DHO's decision to the warden at USP - Big
Sandy, and the warden remanded Patton's incident report
for a rehearing and further proceedings. Despite the
warden's decision, Patton continued to appeal the matter
administratively within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), filing
appeals with the BOP's regional and central offices. At
both levels, BOP officials noted that Patton's incident
report had already been remanded for further proceedings, and
the BOP's central office explained that once Patton's
case was reheard, he could resubmit his appeal to the
appropriate administrative level.
before prison officials could rehear Patton's case,
Patton filed a civil rights complaint with this Court.
See Richard Patton, Jr. v. K. Hall, et al., No.
7:17-cv-142-KKC (E.D. Ky. 2017). In that complaint, Patton
alleged that several officials, including but not limited to
the DHO, warden, BOP Regional Director, and BOP National
Inmate Appeals Administrator, violated his due process and
other rights in a variety of ways. See Id. at R. 1.
This Court, however, dismissed Patton's complaint and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants. See Id.
at R. 19, 20. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit then affirmed this Court's judgment,
explaining, among other things, that Patton was unable to
show a violation of his due process rights. See Patton v.
Hall, No. 18-5235, 2018 WL 7569342 (6th Cir. Aug. 7,
October 22, 2018, less than one month after the Sixth Circuit
issued its mandate, Patton filed his § 2241 petition in
this case. [R. 1]. In that petition, Patton once again
claimed that prison officials violated his due process rights
during the 2016 prison disciplinary proceedings. [R. 1 at
4-5; R. 1-1 at 1-7]. Patton made this argument even though
the Sixth Circuit already resolved this issue and prison
officials still had not had the chance to rehear his
January 2019, the Respondent filed a response to Patton's
petition. [R. 17]. The Respondent pointed out that, recently,
in December 2018, prison officials reheard Patton's
disciplinary case. Ultimately, the DHO once again concluded
that Patton had committed the charged offenses and,
therefore, he ordered that Patton lose 56 days of good
conduct time and imposed other sanctions. [Id. at
6-7]. The Respondent then noted that Patton has not yet
appealed the DHO's December 2018 decision
administratively within the BOP. [Id. at 8]. Still,
the Respondent argues that prison officials did not violate
Patton's due process rights and that there was enough
evidence to support the DHO's latest decision.
[Id. at 8-16].
recently filed his reply brief, and he again claims that his
due process rights were violated back in 2016. [R. 21].
Notably, Patton makes it clear that he is not asserting any
claims related to the DHO's rehearing in December 2018;
indeed, Patton specifically says that the rehearing “is
not relevant in this matter” and that his “due
process rights were violated in 2016.” [Id. at
4]. Ultimately, Patton has asked this Court “secure
[his] immediate release from unlawful custody” and
“expunge [his] incident reports from prison
records.” [R. 1 at 8].
petition is simply without merit. This is because Patton
claims that prison officials violated his due process rights
back in 2016, but this Court has already resolved that matter
and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's judgment. In
fact, the Sixth Circuit repeatedly stated that Patton was
“unable to show that his due process rights were
violated” and that this Court did not err in dismissing
his complaint. See Patton, 2018 WL 7569342 at *1.
Thus, Patton's present due process claims have already
been fully adjudicated, and he cites no legal authority that
would allow him to raise these claims once more via his
Patton makes it clear that he is not asserting any claims
related to the DHO's rehearing in December 2018, and,
even if he did want to raise such claims, he would first have
to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Luedtke v.
Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013) (indicating
that a prisoner must fully exhaust his remedies within the
BOP before he may seek habeas relief under § 2241). The
undisputed evidence in the record makes it clear that Patton
has not yet exhausted those remedies. [R. 17-1 at 7].
it is ORDERED that:
Patton's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1], which claims that prison
officials violated his due process rights back in 2016, is
action is DISMISSED and