Fraga v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Alex Fraga
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-338-LM
FCI Berlin, Warden
Report and Recommendation
Alex Fraga, who is proceeding pro se, brings a petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a disciplinary decision at
FCI Berlin in which he lost 27 days of good time credits. Fraga
contends that there is no evidence to support the disciplinary
hearing officer’s decision that he committed the charged
offense, violation of Bureau of Prisons Prohibited Acts Code 231
that prohibits creating a situation which causes an inmate to
produce his court documents to another inmate. The warden moves
for summary judgment on the ground that sufficient evidence
exists to support the disciplinary decision.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). “A genuine dispute is one that would permit a rational
factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either party, and a
material fact is one that has the potential to affect the
outcome of the suit under the applicable law.” Gattineri v. Wynn
Case 1:22-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 6

2
MA, LLC, 63 F.4th 71, 84 (1st Cir. 2023). The court draws all
reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the nonmovant.
Id. For purposes of a motion for summary judgment, the court
relies on the documents in the record, which includes documents
submitted with the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Background
Fraga is an inmate at FCI Berlin. On May 14, 2021, just
before noon, Fraga and three other inmates went into the cell of
an inmate, Curtis Waters, who had just returned to their unit
from the Special Housing Unit. Doc. no. 1-1, Incident Report.
For the next twenty minutes, the inmates went in and out of the
cell while Waters remained inside. Id. The unit officer noticed
suspicious activity around the cell and went to look to be sure
there was no assault occurring there. Id. A few minutes later,
Waters approached the unit officer and asked for protection
because of the criminal charges against him. Id. Waters
identified the inmates who came to his cell and caused him to
seek protection, including Fraga. Id.
After an investigation that concluded on May 31, 2021,
Fraga was charged with violating Code 231: “requesting,
demanding, pressuring, or otherwise intentionally creating a
situation, which causes an inmate to produce or display his/her
own court documents for any unauthorized purpose to another
Case 1:22-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 6

3
inmate.” Id. The incident report was delivered to Fraga the same
day. Id.
A disciplinary hearing before a disciplinary hearing
officer (“DHO”) was held on the charge on June 10, 2021. Doc.
no. 1-2, at 1. Fraga waived his right to a staff representative.
He denied the charge and stated: “‘I never went in that cell. I
went up there. I went in there to talk to Abdi. I never asked
for his paperwork. If I don’t have mine, how can I ask for his?
I don’t know why I said hi to the guy and get in trouble.’” Id.
(quoting Fraga). The documentary evidence submitted in support
of the charge was the inmate investigative report, video footage
of the incident at Waters’s cell, and still photos from the
video footage.
The DHO found that the violation was committed as charged.
Doc no. 1-2, at 1. To make that finding, the DHO relied on
Fraga’s statement, the employee’s statement, the inmate
investigative report, and video footage of the incident. Id. at
2. The DHO found that the video footage correlated with the
reporting employee’s description of the incident. Id. The DHO
also stated that one of the other inmates involved in the
incident, Abdi, admitted to the charge and did not corroborate
Fraga’s statement that he only went to Waters’s cell to talk to
Abdi. Id. the DHO imposed sanctions of the loss of 27 days of
good time and the loss of privileges.
Case 1:22-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 6

4
Fraga appealed the decision. On March 2, 2022, the
Administrator of National Inmate Appeals denied the appeal,
finding that the DHO’s decision was based on the evidence cited
in the DHO’s report and that the decision was reasonable and
supported by the evidence. Doc. no. 1-3.
In support of his objection to summary judgment, Fraga
submitted a sworn statement by Andy Joseph, one of the inmates
who was identified as being part of the incident in Waters’s
cell. Doc. no. 8, at 2. Joseph states that he was not with Fraga
before or during the incident in Waters’s cell and that he acted
alone with no accomplices. Id. He also states that he admitted
that he acted alone to the DHO. Id.
Discussion
Fraga asserted in support of his § 2241 petition that there
is no evidence to support the DHO’s finding that he committed
the charged offense. The warden moves for summary judgment on
the ground that sufficient evidence supports the DHO’s decision.
Fraga objects to summary judgment.
The loss of good time credits in prison is protected by due
process. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 453, (1985). For
that reason, a hearing officer’s decision that results in loss
of good time credits must be supported by “some evidence in the
record.” Id. at 454. The “some evidence” standard is satisfied
even if the record evidence is only “meager” and even whether
Case 1:22-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 06/20/23 Page 4 of 6

5
there is evidence to support a different conclusion. Id. at 457;
see also Scroggins v. Warden, FCI Berlin, 21-cv-870-JL, 2023 WL
2435635, at *4 (D.N.H. Feb. 10, 2023).
In his objection, Fraga argues that there is no evidence
that he committed the offense because he only walked into
Waters’s cell and that is not an offense. He asserts that there
is no evidence that he pressured anyone or that Waters “pointed
the finger saying he pressured him for court documents.” Doc.
no. 8. Fraga also relies on Joseph’s statement to assert that
Joseph, acting alone, committed the offense. Doc. no. 8, at 2.
Contrary to Fraga’s view of the evidentiary record, there
is more than sufficient evidence to support the DHO’s decision.
Fraga does not deny that the video footage shows that he entered
Waters’s cell during the incident with Waters and the other
inmates, including Joseph. Waters identified Fraga as one of the
inmates involved in the incident. Joseph’s statement that Fraga
was not there and did not participate in pressuring Waters is
contrary to the other evidence. Further, although Joseph states
that he “admitted” to the DHO that he acted alone during the
incident involving Waters, the video footage, Waters’s
identification, and the investigative report show that Fraga
participated in pressuring Waters to disclose court documents.
Because the record includes evidence that Fraga entered
Waters’s cell and pressured him to disclose court documents in
Case 1:22-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 06/20/23 Page 5 of 6

6
violation of Code 231, there is sufficient evidence to support
the DHO’s decision. The warden is entitled to summary judgment
on Fraga’s § 2241 petition.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant
the Warden's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 6) and direct
the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 20, 2023
cc: 	Alex Fraga, pro se
Seth R. Aframe, Esq.
Case 1:22-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 06/20/23 Page 6 of 6