Vincent v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMON P. VINCENT, 	Civil No. 3:25-cv-2555
(Judge Mariani)	Petitioner
V.
WARDEN, USP-CANAAN,
Respondent
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, filed by Petitioner Ramon Vincent ("Vincent"), an inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") . (Doc. 1). Vincent contends that his due process rights
were violated in the context of two disciplinary hearings. 	(Id.). 	For the reasons set forth
below , the Court will deny the petition.
I. 	Background
A. 	BOP Disciplinary Process
The BOP's disciplinary process is fully outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations
("C.F.R."), Title 28, Sections 541 through 541.8. These regulations dictate the manner in
which disciplinary action may be taken should a prisoner violate, or attempt to violate ,
institutional rules. 	The first step requires filing an incident report and conducting an
investigation pursuant to 28 C.F .R. § 541 .5. 	Staff is required to conduct the investigation
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 13

promptly absent intervening circumstances beyond the control of the investigator. 28 C.F.R.
§ 541.5(b).
Following the investigation, the matter is then referred to the Unit Disciplinary
Committee ("UDC") for an initial hearing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. 	If the UDC finds
that a prisoner has committed a prohibited act, it may impose minor sanctions. 	Id. 	If the
alleged violation is serious and warrants consideration for more than minor sanctions, or
involves a prohibited act listed in the greatest or high category offenses, the UDC refers the
matter to a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("OHO") for a hearing. Id. 	Greatest Severity
category offenses carry a possible sanction of, inter alia, loss of good conduct time credits.
Id. § 541.3. 	In the event that a matter is referred for a hearing, the Warden is required to
give the inmate advance written notice of the charges no less than twenty-four (24) hours
before the OHO hearing and offer the inmate a full-time staff member to represent him at
the OHO hearing. 	Id. § 541 .8 (c) and (d).
At the OHO hearing, the inmate is "entitled to make a statement and present
documentary evidence" and has the right to present documents and submit names of
requested witnesses and have them called to testify. 	Id. § 541.8(0. 	The OHO shall "call
witnesses who have information directly relevant to the charge[s] and who are reasonably
available." Id. § 541.8(0(2). 	The OHO need not call repetitive witnesses or adverse
witnesses. 	Id. § 541.8(0(3). 	The inmate has the right to be present throughout the OHO
2
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 13

hearing except during "OHO deliberations or when [his] presence would jeopardize
institution security, at the DHO's discretion ." Id. § 541 .B(e). The OHO must "consider all
evidence presented during the hearing." Id . § 541.B(D. "The DHO's decision will be based
on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence , on the greater weight of the
evidence." Id. 	The OHO has the authority to dismiss any charge, find a prohibited act was
committed, and impose available sanctions. 	Id. § 541.8. 	The OHO must prepare a record
of the proceedings sufficient to document the advisement of inmate rights, DHO's findings,
"DHO's decision", specific "evidence relied on by the OHO" and must identify the reasons
for the sanctions imposed . Id. § 541.8(D(2). A copy must be delivered to the inmate. 	Id.
8. 	Incident Report Number 4159035
On August 3, 2025 , at approximately 12:32 p.m., a staff performed a pat search of
Vincent after escorting him from the Visitation Room following a visit. 	(Doc . 12-6, Incident
Report Number 4159035 , § 11 ). 	During the search, Vincent admitted he had contraband
hidden inside his boxer shorts . (Id.) . Vincent surrendered a grey colored balloon with an
unknown substance inside. 	(Id .). 	Staff secured the balloon and placed Vincent in a holding
cell. (Id.). 	A visual search of Vincent was then performed, and staff recovered a second
grey colored bal loon containing an unknown substance. 	(Id .). The two balloons were taken
to the Special Investigate Services ("SIS") Office, where they were weighed and found to
total approximately 19 grams. (Id.). 	Both balloons contained a brown leafy substance that
3
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 13

had a strong tobacco odor. 	(Id.). 	The substance was tested with the Smiths Detection
IONSCAN 600, which produced a negative result for narcotics. (Id.).
As a result, Vincent received Incident Report Number 4159035, charging him with
violating Prohibited Act Code 331-possession of a non-hazardous tool. 	(Id. § 9). The
report was not issued to Vincent until August 4, 2025, because the initial incident report was
rewritten for an edit to the charged misconduct. (Id. §§ 11, 14-16). On August 5, 2025 ,
Vincent appeared before the UDC . (Id . §§ 17-21). The UDC referred the Incident Report to
the OHO for further hearing. (Id.).
On August 5, 2025, a staff member informed Vincent of his rights at the OHO
hearing and provided him with a copy of the "Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing" form . (Id.
at 5, Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing). Vincent was also provided with a Notice of
Discipline Hearing before the Discipline Hearing Officer (OHO)" form. 	(Id . at 6, Notice of
Discipline Hearing before the OHO). Vincent signed both forms , he did not request
representation by a staff member and did not elect to call witnesses on his behalf. (Id .).
The OHO hearing convened on August 18, 2025. 	(Doc. 12-7, OHO Report). 	During
the August 18, 2025 hearing, the OHO confirmed that Vincent received advanced written
notice of the charges and that he had been advised of his rights before the OHO. 	(Id. § I).
Vincent waived his right to representation by a staff representative, waived his right to call
witnesses on his behalf, expressed an understanding of his rights before the OHO, and did
4
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 13

not present any documentary evidence . (Id . §§ II, Ill, V). Vincent admitted that he was
guilty of the charge and did not provide a statement. 	(Id. § Ill).
Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the OHO found that Vincent committed
the Code 331 violation, after considering and relying upon the reporting officer's written
statement, the incident report, photographs, and Vincent's admission of guilt. 	(Id. §§ IV, V).
The finding of guilt for the Code 331 violation resulted in disallowance of 14 days of good
conduct time and loss of visiting privileges for 90 days. (Id. § VI). 	The OHO cited the
following reasons for imposition of the sanctions:
The action/behavior on the part of any inmate to Possession, Manufacture, or
Introduction of a nonhazardous tool or other Non-Hazardous Contraband,
threatens not only the health, safety and welfare of himself, but that of all
other inmates and staff within the institution . The sanctions imposed by the
OHO were taken to let you know that you alone will be held responsible for
your action/behavior at all times.
The sanction of 14 days disallowed good conduct time is imposed to meet the
reporting requirement of your PLRA sentence procedure.
The sanction of 90 days loss of visit is imposed to deter future misbehavior .
(Id. § VII).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the OHO provided a copy of the report to Vincent
and advised him of his appeal rights. 	(Id. § VIII) . Thereafter, on August 25, 2025, a staff
member delivered the OHO report to Vincent. (Id . § IX).
5
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 13

C. 	Incident Report Number 4158996
On August 3, 2025, at approximately 1:00 p.m., while in the holding cell, Vincent
advised the lieutenant "I got more stuff to give you LT[)." (Doc. 12-4, Incident Report§ 11 ).
Vincent "reached toward his back side, then into his rectum and produced a 2¼ inch blue
latex bundle , wrapped in clear plastic, which emitted a strong odor of marijuana." (Id.). 	The
lieutenant took the contraband from Vincent and generated a Chain of Custody Form and
gave it to the SIS Office. 	(Id.). 	At approximately 1:15 p.m., the balloon was weighed and
determined to be approximately seven grams of a green leafy substance. 	(Id.). 	At 1:38
p.m., the substance was tested with the Smiths Detection IONSCAN 600, which produced a
positive reading for Tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") 28%. 	(Id.). 	The lieutenant also utilized a
NIK Test Kit E, which revealed a positive result for THC . (Id .).
As a result, on August 3, 2025 , Vincent received Incident Report Number 4158996,
charging him with violating Prohibited Act Code 113-possession of drugs/alcohol. (Id. §§
9-10). 	On August 4, 2025, Vincent appeared before the UDC. (Id.§§ 17-21). The UDC
referred the matter to the OHO for further hearing. (Id.) .
On August 4, 2025 , a staff member informed Vincent of his rights at the OHO
hearing and provided him with a copy of the "Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing" form. 	(Id .
at 5, Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing) . Vincent was also provided with a "Notice of
Discipline Hearing before the Discipline Hearing Officer (OHO)" form. 	(Id. at 6, Notice of
6
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 13

Discipline Hearing before the OHO) . Vincent signed both forms, waived his right to
representation by a staff member and did not elect to call witnesses on his behalf . (Id .).
The OHO hearing convened on August 18, 2025 . (Doc . 12-5, OHO Report). 	During
the August 18 , 2025 hearing , the OHO confirmed that Vincent received advanced written
not ice of the charges and that he had been advised of his rights before the OHO. 	(Id. § I).
Vincent waived his right to a staff representative, waived his right to call witnesses ,
expressed an understanding of his rights before the OHO, and did not present any
documentary evidence. 	(Id. § II , Ill, V). 	He provided the following statement: "the officer
said I handed him a blue balloon, it was 5 of us there, I only handed him a grey balloon. "
(Id . § Ill) .
The OHO found sufficient evidence that Vincent committed the Code 113 violation,
after considering and relying upon the reporting officer 's written statement, the incident
report , test results , and photographs . (Id.§ V). The finding of guilt for the Code 113
violation resulted in disallowance of 41 days of good conduct time , loss of commissary
privileges for 90 days, loss of phone privileges for 90 days, and disciplinary segregation for
14 days . (Id . § VI). The OHO cited the following reasons for imposition of the sanctions:
The action/behavior on the part of any inmate to possess intoxicants
threatens not only the health, safety and welfare of himself , but that of all
other inmates and staff within the institut ion. 	In the past , inmates under the
influence of drugs or alcohol have become violent toward other inmates , as
7
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 7 of 13

well as staff, and this type of behavior cannot, and will not be tolerated. 	The
sanctions imposed by the OHO were taken to let you know that you alone will
be held responsible for your action/behavior at all times.
(Id. § VII) .
At the conclusion of the hearing, the OHO provided a copy of the report to Vincent
and advised him of his appeal rights. 	(Id. § VIII). Thereafter, on August 25, 2025, a staff
member delivered the OHO report to Vincent. 	(Id. § IX).
II. 	Discussion
Vincent claims that his due process rights were violated in the context of the
disciplinary hearing process . (Doc . 1). The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall ... be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. V. 	Federal inmates
possess a liberty interest in good conduct time. 	See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-
57 (1974); Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1399 (3d Cir. 1991) .
When a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss of good conduct time
credits, due process requires that the prisoner receive certain due process protections: (1)
written notice of the claimed violation at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing; (2) the
opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when consistent with
institutional and correctional goals; (3) assistance in presenting a defense if the inmate is
illiterate; (4) an impartial tribunal; and (5) a written statement by the factfinder as to
8
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 8 of 13

evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action. 	See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564.
Here, Vincent was afforded all of the required procedural rights set forth in Wolff.
Wolff requires that an inmate be provided notice of the charges against him at least
24 hours in advance of the disciplinary hearing. 	See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. 	It is
undisputed that Vincent received such notice. On August 4, 2024, Vincent received
advanced notice of the charges against him when the investigating lieutenant delivered a
copy of Incident Report Number 4159035 to him. (Doc. 12-6). On August 18, 2025, Vincent
appeared before the OHO for Incident Report Number 4159035. 	(Doc. 12-7). On August 3,
2025, Vincent received advanced notice of the charges against him when the investigating
lieutenant delivered a copy of Incident Report Number 4158996 to him. 	(Doc. 12-4). On
August 18, 2025, Vincent appeared before the OHO for Incident Report Number 4158996.
(Doc. 12-5). Thus, Vincent was given notice for both incident reports in advance of the
required 24 hours prior to the hearings, and there is no merit to any argument that officials
violated the procedures required by Wolff. 	Additionally, after Vincent received the incident
reports, he appeared before the UDC. 	He was properly informed of his rights before the
OHO hearings, as well as given the opportunity to make his own statement, present
documentary evidence, have a staff representative, and to present witnesses on his behalf.
At the conclusion of the OHO hearings, Vincent received written decisions setting forth the
9
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 9 of 13

evidence relied upon by the OHO and the rationale behind the decisions . Vincent was also
not ified of his right to appeal.
Since Vincent was afforded all of his procedural rights, the only remaining issue is
whether there was "some evidence" to support the decisions by the OHO . The Supreme
Court has he ld that there need only be "some evidence" to support the disciplinary decision .
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 -56 (1985) ; see also Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d
140, 145 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting that the Court "need only find that the [Hearing Officer 's]
decision had 'some basis in fact' in order to affirm the decision as comporting with the Due
Process Clause "). The determination of whether the standard is satisfied "does not requ ire
examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibil ity of witnesses , or
weighing of the evidence. 	Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in
the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board ." Hill, 472
U.S. at 455. The record clearly reveals the existence of some evidence to allow the OHO to
conclude that Vincent was guilty of the charges . With respect to Incident Report Number
4159035, in concluding that the greater weight of the evidence supported a finding of guilt,
the OHO considered the report ing officer's written statement , the incident report,
photographs, and Vincent's admission of guilt. (Doc . 12-7 §§ IV , V). As to Incident Report
Number 4158996, in concluding that the greater weight of the evidence supported a finding
of guilt , the OHO considered the reporting officer 's written statement, the incident report ,
10
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 10 of 13

test results , and photographs. 	(Doc. 12-5 § V) . In each instance, the DHO1
s reliance on
such documentary evidence supports a conclusion that the decisions have some basis in
fact and are supported by some evidence .
Next , the Court finds that all sanctions imposed by the OHO were within the limits of
28 C.F.R. § 541 , et seq. 	Vincent was found guilty of a 100-level, greatest severity
prohibited act , and a 300-level, moderate severity level prohibited act. 	Pursuant to 28
C.F .R. § 541.3, the following are the sanctions available for 100-level prohibited acts:
A. 	Recommend parole date rescission or retardation.
B. 	Forfeit and/or withhold earned statutory good time or non-vested good
conduct time (up to 100%) and/or terminate or disallow extra good
time (an extra good time or good conduct time sanction may not be
suspended) .
B.1 . 	Disallow ordinarily between 50% and 75% (27-41 days) of good
conduct time credit available for year (a good conduct time sanction
may not be suspended) .
C. 	Disciplinary segregation (up to 12 months) .
D. 	Make monetary restitution .
E. 	Monetary fine .
F. 	Loss of privileges (e.g ., visiting, telephone, commissary , movies,
recreation).
G. 	Change housing (quarters) .
H. 	Remove from program and/or group activity .
I. 	Loss of job .
J. 	Impound inmate 1
s personal property.
K. 	Confiscate contraband .
L. 	Restrict to quarters .
M. 	Extra duty.
28 C.F.R. § 541.3 (Table 1).
11
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 11 of 13

And, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, the following are the sanctions available for 300-
level prohibited acts:
A. 	Recommend parole date rescission or retardation.
B. 	Forfeit and/or withhold earned statutory good time or non-vested good
conduct time up to 25% or up to 30 days, whichever is less, and/or
terminate or disallow extra good time (an extra good time or good
conduct time sanction may not be suspended).
B.1. 	Disallow ordinarily up to 25% (1-14 days) of good conduct time cred it
available for year (a good conduct time sanction may not be
suspended).
B.2. 	Forfeit up to 14 days of earned FSA Time Credits for each prohibited
act committed.
C. 	Disciplinary segregation (up to 3 months).
D. 	Make monetary restitution.
E. 	Monetary fine.
F. 	Loss of privileges (e.g., visiting, telephone, commissary, movies,
recreation).
G. 	Change housing (quarters) .
H. 	Remove from program and/or group activity.
I. 	Loss of job.
J. 	Impound inmate's personal property.
K. 	Confiscate contraband.
L. 	Restrict to quarters.
M. 	Extra duty.
28 C.F .R. § 541.3 (Table 1).
The sanctions imposed by the OHO were consistent with the severity level of the
prohibited acts and within the maximum available to the OHO.
Further, "[t]he Eighth Amendment is violated only when a punishment is grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the offense." Levi v. Holt, 192 F. App'x 158, 162 (3d Cir.
2006) (citing Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271-74 (1980)). 	Therefore, only sanctions
12
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 12 of 13

that "impose [] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life," may be deemed excessive . Moles v. Holt, 221 F. App'x 92, 95 (3d
Cir . 2007) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,484 (1995)) . The penalties imposed
here, loss of good conduct time, disciplinary segregation, and loss of privileges , do not work
an "atypical and significant hardship" on Vincent and do not serve to extend his confinement
beyond the expected parameters of his sentence .1 Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484-85 .
Consequently, he is not entitled to relief .
Ill. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court will deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
(Doc. 1). A separate Order shall issue.
United States District Judge
Dated: March 	/0 	, 2026
1 	Vincent's projected release date is December 14, 2026 , via good conduct time. (Doc. 12-3) .
13
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 16 Filed 03/11/26 Page 13 of 13