Jason Donald Bolduc v. M. Arviza

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Jason Donald Bolduc’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time, alleging procedural delays, insufficient or improperly classified evidence, denial of access to photographs, and retaliation. The court concluded that the disciplinary process satisfied due process, that some evidence supported the DHO’s decision, and that the retaliation claim was not cognizable in a § 2241 petition.

Holdings

1. Venue was proper because a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner was confined when the petition was filed, and Bolduc was then housed at FCI-Allenwood in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
2. Because Bolduc lost good conduct time, the disciplinary proceeding implicated a protected liberty interest and was required to satisfy the minimum procedural protections identified in Wolff.
3. The DHO's decision satisfied due process because some evidence supported the finding that Bolduc possessed the contraband.
4. The record did not establish a due process violation because Bolduc did not show that he requested the photographs before the DHO hearing or that prison officials arbitrarily denied a timely request for evidence.
5. The UDC's review did not violate due process because the review occurred within the applicable regulatory framework, and even an untimely UDC review would not itself establish a due process violation under Wolff.
6. The charge under Prohibited Act Code 108 was proper because possession or manufacture of a hand-restraint key may constitute possession or manufacture of a hazardous tool capable of facilitating escape, even if the conduct could also fall under Code 208.
7. Bolduc's retaliation claim was not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition because it sounded in civil-rights liability rather than challenging the fact or duration of custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the UDC's timing and review of the incident report violated Bolduc's due process rights.
2. Whether the DHO's decision was supported by some evidence and whether Bolduc was denied due process by lack of access to photographs or by the alleged malfunction of the key.
3. Whether Bolduc was improperly charged under Prohibited Act Code 108 rather than Code 208.
4. Whether Bolduc's retaliation claim was cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition.
5. Whether venue was proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Disposition

dismissed