Kasimov v. Arviza

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DILKHAYOT KASIMOV, 	: Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1352
:
Petitioner, 	:
: (Judge Kane)
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
M. ARVIZA, WARDEN, FCI 	:
ALLENWOOD MEDIUM 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Statement of Facts and of the Case
A. Introduction
The petitioner, Dilkhayot Kasimov, a federal inmate incarcerated
in the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), has petitioned for the writ of habeas
corpus, asking us to examine the results of a prison disciplinary hearing
that 	led 	to 	the 	forfeiture 	of 	good 	time 	and 	other 	privileges.1 	We
previously recommended that the court remand this matter to the BOP
for further development of the record because we could not conclude that
Kasimov was afforded the full panoply of procedural protections. 2 	The
1 Doc. 1.
2 Doc. 11.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 18

2
government objected to these findings and filed additional evidence
purporting to address evidentiary gaps. 3 	In light of that new evidence,
the District Court recommitted the matter to this court for further
consideration. 4 	After review, we conclude that there was no violation of
the petitioner’s procedural due process rights in this matter. Further, we
conclude there was also no substantive due process violation here, and so
recommend the petition be denied.
B. DHO Proceedings
Kasimov is a federal inmate confined at FCI Allenwood Medium in
Allenwood, Pennsylvania.5 	On July 6, 2023, Correctional Officer White
drafted an Incident Report, charging Kasimov with violations of codes
224, “Assault without Serious Injury,” and 307, “Refusing to Obey an
Order.” 6 	According to the report, White saw Kasimov repeatedly strike
his cellmate with “closed fisted (sic) punches to the upper torso and
head [,]” 	twice 	ordered 	Kasimov 	to 	stop 	to 	no 	avail, 	and 	then
administered a two second burst of pepper spray into the cell to stop the
3 Doc. 15.
4 Doc. 18.
5 Doc. 1 ¶ 2.
6
Id. ¶ 9.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 18

3
assault.7 	According to Kasimov, there was no assault of any kind, and
White administered the pepper spray for no reason. 8 	According to
Kasimov’s cellmate, Jordan Autrey, there was no assault or fight and
White deployed pepper spray because when White asked Kasimov to turn
over a piece of fishing line he had in the cell, Kasimov slid the line under
the door and not through the “wicket.”9
That same day, Kasimov received a copy of the incident report,
which charged him with the violations outlined above.10 	The Unit
Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) held a hearing on July 8, 2023, where
Kasimov denied punching anyone, and the UDC referred the report to
the Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”).11
The DHO gave Kasimov written notice of the hearing scheduled for
July 6, 2023.12 	Kasimov indicated that he did not wish to have a staff
representative or a witness at the hearing. 13 	Kasimov was also given a
written statement advising him of his rights more than 24 hours in
7
Id.
8
Id. ¶ 14.
9
Id. ¶ 12.
10 Doc. 1 ¶ 9.
11 Doc. 9-5 at 3.
12 Doc. 9-6 at 2.
13 Doc. 9-8 at 2.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 18

4
advance of the hearing.14 	The DHO gave Kasimov five days to gather
evidence and then held a hearing on July 12, 2023.15
At the hearing, Kasimov denied the charges, stating “I never fought
or punched anyone. I didn’t do anything wrong. He was my Muslim
brother and I would not do that.” 16 	Kasimov claims that at the hearing,
he requested the DHO view video footage of the incident, which he was
not able to obtain and present himself because he was housed in the
SHU. 17 	The DHO considered Kasimov’s statement, Autrey’s statement,
White’s written report, and documentation attached to that report. 18 The
DHO explained in a sworn statement that while an “inmate has the
opportunity to request exculpatory evidence, i.e. medical records and/or
the review of surveillance video” and where such a request is made “the
DHO is required to document that request in his report [,]” that, here,
“Kasimov did not request that [the DHO] review any video footage” and
“it is not mentioned in the investigation section of the incident report that
14 Doc. 9-6 at 2.
15
Id.
16 Doc 1 ¶ 14.
17
Id.
18
Id.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 18

5
Inmate Kasmiov requested the video to be reviewed.”19
Based on the weight of the evidence, the DHO found Kasimov had
committed “Assault without Serious Injury,” but not “Refusing to Obey
an Order.” 20 	The DHO relied on the information contained in White’s
report and the fact that Kasimov presented “no substantive evidence to
support that you did not assault another inmate.”21 	The DHO found
White’s 	report 	more 	credible 	than 	the 	testimony 	of 	two 	inmates,
reasoning that “[i]nmates often support other inmates defenses to aid in
avoiding culpability for their actions. It does not make sense for staff to
fabricate a false report as they gain nothing by doing so.” 22 	The DHO
sanctioned Kasimov with a loss of 27 days good conduct time, as well as
a 	30-day 	disciplinary 	segregation 	and 	a 	six-month 	loss 	of 	phone
privileges, reasoning that any assault threatens the health, safety, and
welfare of inmates and staff, and that such incidents can create larger
disturbances making it difficult to provide security. 23 	He noted that the
sanctions were imposed to make clear to Kasimov that he would be “held
19 Doc. 14-2, ¶¶ 9, 14, 22, 24.
20 Doc 9-6 at 4.
21 Doc. 1 ¶ 14.
22 Doc. 9-6 at 4.
23
Id.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 18

6
responsible for [his] actions/behavior at all times.” 24 The DHO explained
that the Prison Litigation Reform Act mandated the loss of good conduct
time, the disciplinary segregation was imposed as punishment for the act,
and the loss of phone time was imposed to deter future misconduct. 25
Kasimov filed a series of administrative appeals, pursuing them to
exhaustion before filing the instant petition.26 	Kasimov alleges that the
DHO’s failure to consider the surveillance video violated his procedural
due process rights, and that the evidence at the administrative hearing
was insufficient, rendering the punishments imposed a violation of his
substantive due process rights.27 	The petition has been fully briefed and
is now ripe for resolution. 28 	This court initially recommended remand to
further develop the record, 29 but, after supplementation of the record by
the government, 30 the District Court recommitted the matter to this court
to consider if the supplementation sufficiently developed the record to
24
Id.
25
Id.
26 Doc. 9-2 at ¶ 4.
27 Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 31-47.
28 Docs. 1, 9, 10.
29 Doc. 11.
30 Doc. 15.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 18

7
reach a conclusion. 31 	We conclude the supplementation was sufficient,
and for the reasons set forth below, we now recommend that this petition
be denied.
II. 	Discussion
A. Standards Governing the BOP’s Administrative Proceedings
(1) Procedural Standards for DHO Hearings
The 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	explained 	that 	“[p]rison 	disciplinary
proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply
of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” 32 	The
Court 	held 	that 	prisoners 	are 	instead 	entitled 	to 	a 	specific 	trio 	of
procedural protections: (1) at least 24 hours advance written notice of the
charges, “to give the charged party a chance to marshal the facts in his
defense and to clarify what the charges are”; (2) an opportunity “to call
witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense” so long as
they are not “unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional
goals”; and (3) a “written statement by the fact finder of the evidence
relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action” so as to “protect the
31 Doc. 18.
32
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 7 of 18

8
inmate against collateral consequences based on a misunderstanding of
the nature of the original proceeding.”33
A 	prisoner 	in 	a 	disciplinary 	proceeding 	is 	also 	entitled 	to 	an
impartial tribunal. 34 	That requirement is specific to the incident, the
prisoner, and the DHO, and “prohibits only those officials who have a
direct personal or otherwise substantial involvement, such as major
participation 	in 	a 	judgmental 	or 	decision-making 	role, 	in 	the
circumstances underlying the charge from sitting on the disciplinary
committee.”35
The BOP has adopted statutory guidelines for inmate discipline
procedures, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 541.1
	et seq. 	These procedures
“substantially track the procedures outlined in
Wolff . . . [and] in some
33
Id. at 563-67.
34
Meyers v. Alldredge, 492 F.2d 296, 305 (3d Cir. 1974) (“[A]t a minimum
due 	process 	requires 	an 	impartial 	factfinder 	in 	prison 	disciplinary
matters involving serious punishments such as good time forfeiture.”).
35
Id. at 306;
see also Pisicotta v. N’Diaye, Civ. No. 21-20573, 2023 WL
3749981 (D. N.J. June 1, 2023) (claim of bias made without evidence did
not show partiality);
	Lasko v. Holt, 334 F. App’x 474 (3d Cir. 2009)
(same);
Greer v. Hogston, 288 F. App’x. 797, 799 (3d Cir. 2008) (DHO
changing the charging document did not make the DHO personally
involved);
Redding v. Holt, 252 F. App’x 488 (3d Cir. 2007) (claim of bias
made without evidence did not show partiality);
Levi v. Holt, 192 F.
App’x. 158, 162 (3d Cir. 2006) (DHO “almost always” holding against
prisoners was not evidence of partiality).
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 8 of 18

9
respects they go beyond what the due process clause itself requires.” 36
The regulations lay out a process for prison staff to follow when they
believe an inmate has committed a prohibited act. First, staff must issue
an incident report to the inmate and formally begin an investigation. 37
Once the investigation is complete, a UDC reviews its results and can
either make a finding (and enter discipline, if appropriate) or refer the
incident to a DHO for further consideration. 38 	During this review, the
inmate is entitled to notice of any proposed violation, to appear before the
UDC, to make a statement on the record, and to present evidence.39
These regulations also provide inmates with procedural rights
before and during a DHO hearing. 	The inmate has the right to attend
the hearing, unless the DHO finds their attendance creates security
concerns. 40 	The inmate is entitled to receive written notice of charges
against him at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, and to have a
full-time staff member provide him assistance or represent him at the
36
Von Kahl v. Brennan, 855 F. Supp. 1413, 1418 (M.D. Pa. 1994).
37 28 C.F.R § 541.5.
38 28 C.F.R § 541.7.
39
Id.
40 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(e).
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 9 of 18

10
hearing. 41 	At the hearing, the inmate may make a statement, present
documentary evidence, and request witnesses who, if approved, may
testify in person or by written statement. 42 	The DHO has discretion to
approve witnesses, but need not permit repetitive or adverse witnesses,
and 	may 	disallow 	witnesses 	if 	their 	presence 	would 	jeopardize
institutional security. 43 	The DHO “will” call witnesses with directly
relevant information but may decline to do so for security reasons or
where the witness is testifying to information available in investigation
materials. 44
The regulations also set standards for the DHO’s decision-making
process. 	A DHO must consider all evidence presented, base his or her
decision on “at least some facts” presented at the hearing, and, where
there is conflicting evidence, base the decision on the weight of the
evidence. 45 The DHO is obligated to make a written record of the hearing,
which need not be verbatim, and deliver it to the inmate. 46 	The record
41 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(c), (d).
42 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f).
43
Id.
44 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(e).
45 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f).
46 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h).
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 10 of 18

11
must address whether the inmate was advised of their rights, what
evidence the DHO relied on, the DHO’s ultimate decision, the sanctions
imposed, and the reasons for any sanctions. 47
Where the record evinces that an inmate has received all the
aforementioned 	protections, 	procedural 	due 	process 	is 	typically
satisfied. 48
(2) Substantive Standards Governing DHO Decisions
The petitioner has also attacked the substance of the DHO decision,
arguing that the decision was based on insufficient evidence. 	The
Supreme Court held that in prison disciplinary determinations, “the
requirements of due process are satisfied if
some evidence supports the
decision [.]”49 	The Court explained that “[a]scertaining whether this
standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record,
independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the
47
Id.
48
	See, e.g., Anamanya v. Rickard, Civ. No. 3:21-cv-1775, 2023 WL
11983713 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2023) (upholding disciplinary decision);
Butt
v. Moser, Civ. No. 3:19-cv-159, 2020 WL 2541789 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2020)
(same);
Fiore v. Lindsay, 336 F. App’x 168 (3d Cir. 2009) (same).
49
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)
(emphasis added).
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 11 of 18

12
evidence.”50 	Notably, the evidence presented in
Hill “would never be
enough to find a defendant guilty of assault in a regular criminal
courtroom, yet the Supreme Court held that it was sufficient to satisfy
the Due Process Clause.” 51 	A DHO’s decisions are therefore typically
upheld where there is a showing of “some evidence.”52
Because the standard of review is relatively lenient and does not
require exhaustive review, “a reviewing court need only find that the
DHO’s decision had ‘some basis in fact’ in order to affirm the decision as
comporting with the Due Process Clause.”53 	The Supreme Court found
“the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that
could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” 54
Where “there is some evidence to support the decision of the hearing
50
Id.;
Thompson v. Owens, 889 F.2d 500, 501-02 (3d Cir. 1989).
51
Denny v. Schultz, 708 F. 3d. 140, 146 (3d Cir 2013).
52
See Hill, 472 U.S. at 457;
see also, Denny, 708 F. 3d. at 145 (3d Cir
2013) (upholding denial of good time credits where the only evidence was
contraband found in the petitioner’s shared cell);
Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (explaining that the “some evidence” standard is in
addition to, not instead of, the
Wolff standards);
	Sinde v. Gerlinski, 252
F. Supp. 2d 144 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (circumstantial evidence and indicia of
unreliability from prisoner was “some evidence” sufficient to uphold
revocation of good time credits);
Thompson, 889 F.2d 500 (typical chain
of custody showing not required to meet “some evidence” standard).
53
Denny, 708 F.3d at 145 (quoting
Hill, 472 U.S. at 456).
54
Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-456.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 12 of 18

13
examiner, the court must reject any evidentiary challenges” by the
petitioner. 55 	However, “some evidence” may not be present where the
finding of culpability relies on remote probabilities. 56
B. This Petition should be Denied.
With the benefit of the supplemented record, we conclude there was
no procedural due process violation here. 	We also conclude that the
petition fails to make out a violation of substantive due process, and so
recommend the petition be denied.
(1) Procedural Due Process
Kasimov does not dispute that he had the opportunity to present
evidence and witnesses, and to make his own statement. He argues that,
because he was incarcerated within the SHU without email access, he
had no way to access documentary evidence (specifically the surveillance
video and the medical report) and for these reasons, he requested that
the DHO view the surveillance video.57 	That request is not documented
55
Snide¸ 252 F. Supp. 2d at 150.
56
Compare Cardenas v. Wigen, 921 F. Supp. 286, 289 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1996)
(holding that where the evidence showed a one-in-12 chance that the
petitioner had committed an offense, that was insufficient for the “some
evidence” 	standard)
	with 	Denny, 	708 	F. 	3d. 	at 	145 	(3d 	Cir 	2013)
(contraband in a shared two-prisoner cell was “some evidence” of an
individual prisoner’s constructive possession of contraband).
57 Doc. 1 ¶¶ 10, 14 n. 2.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 13 of 18

14
in the records, and Kasimov declined to have a staff representative or
witness, who might have corroborated such a request, present. 58
We previously recommended remand for the limited purpose of
determining if more information about the alleged request could be
produced, and the government’s filings have since satisfied this need. In
its 	objection 	to 	our 	Report 	and 	Recommendation, 	the 	government
included the sworn statement of the DHO in this matter, Mr. David
Lupotsky. 59 Therein, Lupotsky states that Kasimov did not request video
evidence at the hearing.60 	We conclude this is sufficient to demonstrate
no request was made, and so no procedural due process violation occurred
here. While the petitioner disputes this conclusion, we reiterate that by
declining to have a staff representative present with him at the hearing,
Kasimov undermined his ability to effectively dispute what occurred
therein. We conclude there was no procedural due process violation here.
(1) Substantive Due Process
Kasimov also alleges a substantive due process violation. 	In this
matter, the DHO credited White’s report as “some evidence” of an
58 Doc. 9-8 at 2.
59 Doc. 15-2 at 2-5.
60
Id. ¶ 23.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 14 of 18

15
assault.61 Kasimov argues the DHO erred, in violation of due process, by
failing to credit countervailing evidence.62 	He points to six pieces of
alleged evidence which he argues “undermine” White’s statement.63 This
argument is unavailing.
	Hill establishes all that is required is a DHO
rely on “some evidence.”64 	The
Hill Court explained that “[a]scertaining
whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the
entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or
weighing of the evidence.”65 	The instruction that the entire record need
not be examined necessarily implies that the presence of countervailing
evidence is of no moment.
Kasimov cites to the First Circuit case
Cummings v. Hazelwood,
arguing it stands for the proposition that countervailing evidence in the
record means a DHO’s reliance on a correctional officer’s statement alone
cannot suffice as “some evidence” of a violation.66 	In
Cummings, the
correctional officer in question alleged he observed one inmate using a
61 Doc. 1-1 at 3.
62 Doc. 1 ¶¶40-47.
63
Id. ¶ 43.
64
Hill, 472 U.S at 454.
65
Id. at 455.
66 Doc
. 1 ¶¶44-47.
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 15 of 18

16
chokehold on another, but both inmates claimed one inmate lifted the
other up by his armpits after a fall, and that what the correctional officer
thought was a chokehold was actually a misperception of an innocent
action. 67 	The DHO resolved the discrepancy by noting that the inmates
had motive to lie, whereas the correctional officer did not, and so credited
the officer’s version of events.68 	The First Circuit found that because
there was a possibility that all parties were being truthful about their
perception 	of 	what 	occurred, 	a 	credibility 	determination 	was 	an
inappropriate method of resolving the discrepancy, because the actual
issue was “the guard’s immediate perception” of the situation.69
The Hearing Officer here made a similar credibility determination,
finding that White had no motive to lie whereas the inmates involved
did. 70 	But in this matter, White, Kasimov, and Autrey (Kasimov’s
cellmate) 	gave 	completely 	different 	accounts 	of 	what 	happened. 71
67
Cummings v. Hazelwood, No. 22-1087, 2023 WL 5281560 at *2 (1st
Cir., May 19, 2023).
68
Id.
69
Id.
70 Doc. 1 ¶ 14.
71 Kasimov alleged White pepper sprayed him without motivation, White
alleged he witnessed Kasimov punching Autrey and used pepper spray
to quell the assault, and Autrey alleged that White demanded an item
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 16 of 18

17
Presented 	with 	mutually 	exclusive 	narratives, 	the 	DHO 	considered
motivation in deciding which narrative was most credible. 	We conclude
that 	consideration 	was 	appropriate 	in 	these 	circumstances, 	which
distinguishes this case from
Cummings. 	We therefore conclude White’s
statement shows “some evidence” of assault, the DHO did not err in
crediting that statement, and there was no violation of substantive due
process here.
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, upon consideration of this
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the
petition be DENIED.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local
Rule 72.3:
Any 	party 	may 	object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	proposed
findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or
matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a
recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a
habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk
of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written 	objections 	which 	shall 	specifically 	identify 	the
from Kasimov and pepper sprayed Kasimov for not using the “wicket” to
deliver that item. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7, 9, 12).
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 17 of 18

18
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report
to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.
The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall
apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those
portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations to which objection is made and may accept,
reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge,
however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her
discretion or where required by law, and may consider the
record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or
her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge
may 	also 	receive 	further 	evidence, 	recall 	witnesses 	or
recommit 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge 	with
instructions.
Submitted this 18th day of March, 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01352-YK Document 19 Filed 03/18/26 Page 18 of 18