Clark v. Warden, FCI Mendota

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in a federal prisoner’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court denied Grounds Two through Four, which challenged Bureau of Prisons grievance and administrative procedures, but found that an evidentiary hearing was necessary on Ground One concerning whether petitioner received the disciplinary hearing officer report required under Wolff v. McDonnell. The matter was referred to the magistrate judge for that hearing.

Holdings

1. An evidentiary hearing was appropriate because a genuine factual dispute existed over whether Clark received the post-hearing DHO report, and resolution of the credibility dispute on affidavits was insufficient.
2. Grounds Two through Four did not warrant habeas relief because the challenged BOP procedures did not fall within the constitutional requirements established by Wolff, and due process does not require a prison to comply with its own more generous procedures.
3. A prisoner has no separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure; therefore, alleged defects in the BOP grievance process did not independently support habeas relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted to resolve the factual dispute over whether Clark received the post-hearing DHO report required by Wolff v. McDonnell.
2. Whether alleged violations of BOP procedures concerning the timing of the DHO report and handling of administrative appeals established a constitutional due process violation or warranted habeas relief.
3. Whether a prisoner has a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.

Disposition

remanded