Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Daniel Wesley Allen,
Appellant,
v.
Constance C.
Reese, et al.,
Appellee.
November 27, 2002,
Submitted
December 3, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PER CURIAM.
In
September 2000 Daniel Wesley Allen, an inmate at the Federal Medical Center in
Rochester, Minnesota (Rochester), was charged, as relevant, with possession of
any narcotics or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the individual by the
medical staff. The incident report indicated an officer had conducted a search
of Allen's room and found in his bedstand drawer a jar labeled "Flax Oil
1000," which contained [*8] 160 pills labeled "Mylan 6410."
Further investigation revealed that "Mylan 6410" is Doxepin 100 mg,
an antidepressant. At a hearing before a Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO),
Allen stated that the medication had been prescribed for him by doctors at both
Rochester and Taft, the prison where he was previously incarcerated; and that he had not taken the
pills as given at Taft, and had kept some instead, because he wanted to take
them only once in a while. The DHO found that the fact the pills were in a jar
labeled "Flax Oil" showed Allen was attempting to disguise his
possession of prescription pills, which he possessed in sufficient number to
cause a fatal overdose to him; that if Allen wanted to reduce his medication,
he should have done so through his doctors, not by "hoarding the controlled
medication"; and that Allen had committed "the prohibited act of 'possession of drugs not authorized by
medical staff,' Code # 113." Allen was sanctioned with disallowance of 40
days good-conduct time; and 30 days of disciplinary segregation, which was suspended
pending 180 days of clear conduct. Allen unsuccessfully appealed the DHO's
determination. He then filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition claiming he
was denied liberty without due process, in that his waiver of his right to call
witnesses and have a staff representative during the DHO hearing was uninformed
and unknowing; and the DHO's findings did not support the charged violation
because the DHO substituted "not authorized" for "not prescribed," and Allen was
prescribed the medication in his possession. The district court n1 denied the
petition, holding that Allen had been provided adequate procedural due process
protections, and that there was some evidence upon which the DHO could have
found that Allen had committed the charged violation.
The federal regulations list as a prohibited act "Code
113-Possession of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, or related paraphernalia not
prescribed for the individual by the medical staff." Sanctions for this
violation include disallowance of good-time credit and disciplinary segregation
(up to 60 days). See 28 C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3 (2000).
We agree
with the district court that Allen's procedural due process rights were not
violated. He was given advance written notice of the charges against him; he
waived, through a signed written form, his right to call witnesses and to have
a representative present during the hearing; and he received a written report
of the DHO's decision setting forth the specific evidence relied on and the
reason for the sanction. See Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-66, 570, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S. Ct. 2963
(1974) (setting forth limited procedural rights with respect to prison
disciplinary action). Allen has not shown that his waiver was involuntary; and
the disciplinary process complied with the scheme set forth in the federal
regulations, including the preparation of an incident report, the conducting of
an investigation, the initial hearing before the disciplinary committee, the
hearing before the DHO, and the appeals process, see 28 C.F.R. § 541.11, Table
1 (2000).
We also agree that--despite the
substitution of language in the DHO's finding-the record contained "some
evidence" to support the charge that Allen possessed drugs not prescribed
for him by the medical staff. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,
455, [*9] 86 L. Ed. 2d 356, 105 S. Ct. 2768 (1985) (procedural due process demands that prison
disciplinary board findings are supported by some evidence in record). The record shows that Allen's
prescription for Doxepin was not renewed at Rochester after July 2000 and
Rochester did not carry the Mylan brand. Further, Allen admitted that although
the pills were given to him at Taft to take in the pill line, he kept them
instead; and he has not shown that he had any prescription which would have
allowed him to accumulate and store a potential overdose of pills. Accordingly,
we affirm.
FOOTNOTE:
n1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United
States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and
recommendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate
Judge for the District of Minnesota.