Sumit Garg v. Warden J. Greene

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Sumit Garg’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary conviction and related sanctions. The court held that Garg received the procedural protections required by due process and that the disciplinary finding was supported by some evidence. The court dismissed as moot Garg’s claim concerning First Step Act time credits because the Bureau of Prisons recalculated and applied the credits he sought.

Holdings

1. The disciplinary conviction satisfied due process because Garg received the procedures required for a hearing affecting good-conduct time and the DHO's finding was supported by some evidence.
2. The DHO did not violate due process by finding Garg guilty of Code 297 because the governing regulation permits the DHO to find that an inmate committed the charged prohibited act or a similar prohibited act described in the incident report, and the evidence supported the Code 297 classification.
3. The loss of 27 days of good-conduct time and six months of telephone privileges was authorized by the governing regulations and was not constitutionally excessive.
4. Garg failed to establish an equal protection violation because he did not allege or prove purposeful discrimination based on membership in a protected class, and the record did not show that his cellmate received a lesser sanction.
5. Garg's challenge to the calculation and application of FSA time credits was moot because the BOP recalculated his credits, applied 155 days to his sentence, and provided the relief he requested.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Garg's prison disciplinary conviction and sanctions violated due process because the DHO's finding was not supported by some evidence.
2. Whether the DHO violated due process by finding Garg guilty of Code 297 rather than the Code 397 offense Garg claimed was appropriate.
3. Whether the disciplinary sanctions were authorized and constitutionally excessive.
4. Whether Garg established an equal protection violation by alleging that his cellmate received a lesser sanction.
5. Whether Garg's challenge to the BOP's calculation and application of FSA time credits was moot after the BOP recalculated and applied the credits.

Disposition

dismissed