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.

Timmons v. Perdue

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 25, 2017

KENNETH TIMMONS, Petitioner
v.
R.A. PERDUE, Respondent

          MEMORANDUM

          Christopher C Conner Chief Judge

         Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC § 2241 filed by petitioner Kenneth Timmons (“Timmons”) an inmate currently confined at the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution in Minersville Pennsylvania (“FCI-Schuylkill”) (Doc 1) Timmons contends that his due process rights were violated in the context of a disciplinary hearing held at the Fort Dix Federal Correctional Institution in Joint Base MDL New Jersey (“FCI-Fort Dix”) The petition is ripe for disposition and for the reasons that follow will be denied

         I Background

         On August 11 2015 Timmons was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to a 90-month term of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Doc 1 at 1; USA v Timmons No 2:13-cr-303 (WD Pa)) His projected release date is July 8 2020 via good conduct time (Doc 7-1 Ex 1 Attach B Public Information Inmate Data)

         In the instant petition Timmons claims that his rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing held at FCI-Fort Dix where he was found guilty of a code 108 violation for possession manufacture or introduction of a hazardous tool (Doc 1) Specifically Timmons challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the discipline hearing officer (“DHO”) to find him guilty of a code 108 violation (Id. at 7) For relief Timmons seeks dismissal of the incident report and restoration of his good conduct time (Id. at 8)

         There is no dispute that Timmons exhausted his administrative remedies prior to initiating this action (Doc 7 at 2 n1; Doc 8-1)

         II Discussion

         On April 20 2016 Timmons was served with incident report number 2841499 charging him with a code 108 violation for “possession manufacture introduction or loss of a hazardous tool” (Doc 7-1 at 9 Incident Report) The incident is described as follows:

On April 20 2016 at approx 3:00 pm while conducting a pat search on inmate Timmons Kenneth Reg No 06555-068 in 5802 1st floor bathroom I discovered a “white Blue-Tooth Headset device” in the possession of inmate Timmons This “Blue-Tooth device[”] is used on cellular phones as a more comfortable way to conduct phone calls without having the phone against the ear This device [c]learly has a “Microphone” picture stamped on it When inmate Timmons was questioned about the device he stated “yes that's mine I got it of[f] another compound” The Operations Lt was noticed of this finding

(Doc 7-1 at 9 § 11)

         On April 20 2016 Lieutenant Plaja gave Timmons advanced written notice of the charges against him and an investigation ensued (Doc 7-1 at 10) During the investigation Timmons was advised of his right to remain silent and he indicated that he understood his rights. (Id.) Timmons stated that he was unaware that there was a microphone in the headphones, and that a staff member patted him down the day before the incident and returned the same headphones to him. (Id.)

         On April 22, 2016, Timmons appeared before the Unit Discipline Committee (“UDC”). (Doc. 7-1, at 9). Due to the severity of the offense, the UDC referred the incident report to the DHO with a recommendation that sanctions be imposed. (Id.)

         On April 22, 2016, a staff member informed Timmons of his rights at the DHO hearing and provided him with a copy of the “Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing” form. (Doc. 7-1, at 12, Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing). Timmons was also provided with a “Notice of Discipline Hearing before the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO)” form. (Doc. 7-1, at 13, Notice of Discipline Hearing before the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO)). Timmons waived his right to have a staff member represent him and elected not to call any witnesses. (Id.)

         On April 28, 2016, Timmons appeared for a hearing before DHO A. Boyce. (Doc. 7-1, at 7-8, DHO Report). During the April 28, 2016 hearing, the DHO confirmed that Timmons received advanced written notice of the charges on April 20, 2016, that he had been advised of his rights before the DHO on April 22, 2016, and that Timmons waived his right to a staff representative and did not request to call any witnesses. (Id. at 7). The DHO again advised Timmons of his rights, Timmons indicated that he understood them, and that he was ready to proceed with the hearing. (Id.) Regarding the charges, ...


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.