Fredrickson v. Warden of Seagoville

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
T IM F REDRICKSON ,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-1051-P
W ARDEN , FCI SEAGOVILLE
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the petition of Tim Fredrickson for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court, having considered
the 	petition, 	the 	response, 	the 	reply, 	the 	record, 	and 	applicable
authorities, concludes that the petition must be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2025, during a routine cell search, a correctional
officer found two unused containers of Narcan nasal spray inside
Petitioner’s locker. ECF No. 8 at App. 002–003, 009. Petitioner admitted
that he had taken the Narcan from a trashcan and kept it. Id. at App.
003, 011. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) concluded that
Petitioner had committed a prohibited act and entered the required
minimum disallowance of 41 days of good conduct time. She then
determined that, considering Petitioner’s discipline history, and the
severity of the offense, that he should be sanctioned an additional 41
days of nonvested good conduct time, loss of commissary privileges for
180 days, loss of phone privileges for 180 days, and a monetary fine
worth 75% of his total balance. Id. at App. 003–004, 013–016.
GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
Petitioner argues that the Narcan was not “narcotics, marijuana,
drugs, alcohol, intoxicants” so as to be a series 100 offense. Further, he
“was improperly double sanctioned 41 days twice.” ECF No. 1 at 2.
Case 4:25-cv-01051-P Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts cannot retry every prison disciplinary dispute. Reeves
v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). Rather, they may act only
where arbitrary or capricious action is shown in connection with a
disciplinary hearing that involves a liberty interest, that is, restraint
that imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation
to the ordinary incidents of prison life.1 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
484 (1995). In such cases, due process if satisfied where the inmate
receives: (1) 24-hour advanced written notice of the charges against him;
(2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence
in his defense; and (3) a written statement from the fact-finder that
includes the evidence relied on and the reasons for the action taken.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–67 (1974). If those requirements
are met, the court only looks to see whether there is some evidence in
the record to support the findings made at the hearing. Superintendent,
Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455–56 (1985) (“Requiring a
modicum of evidence to support a decision to revoke good time credits
will 	help 	to 	prevent 	arbitrary 	deprivations 	without 	threatening
institutional interests or imposing undue administrative burdens.”)
Only where there is “no evidence whatsoever” will a prison disciplinary
decision be overturned. Reeves, 19 F.3d at 1062.
ANALYSIS
The inmate discipline program of the Bureau of Prisons is set forth
at 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.1–541.8, and applies to all inmates designated to any
prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by
direction of, or under agreement with, the BOP. 28 C.F.R. § 541.2.
Generally, 	the 	procedures 	are 	as 	follows: 	When 	staff 	witness 	or
reasonably believe an inmate has committed a prohibited act, the staff
member issues an incident report to the inmate, usually within 24
hours. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). After the inmate receives the report, a BOP
1 Loss of commissary, phone, and visitation privileges do not implicate due process
concerns. See, e.g., Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958–59 (5th Cir. 2000); Madison v.
Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Likewise, segregated confinement does not
present an atypical or significant hardship beyond the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995); Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958.
Case 4:25-cv-01051-P Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
staff member will investigate it, giving the inmate an opportunity to
make a statement and request that witnesses be interviewed or evidence
be obtained and reviewed. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b). The Unit Discipline
Committee (“UDC”) reviews the incident report and the inmate has an
opportunity to appear and make a statement and present evidence. 28
C.F.R. § 541.7. The UDC can impose sanctions, except loss of good time
credit, FSA time credits, disciplinary segregation, or monetary fines. 28
C.F.R. § 541.7(f). It may refer the incident report to the DHO for further
review. 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(g). The DHO conducts a hearing at which the
inmate may appear and present evidence. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8. The inmate
may also request and obtain the assistance of a staff representative. Id.
If the DHO finds that the inmate committed a prohibited act, the DHO
may impose any of the available sanctions.2 Id. The inmate may appeal
the decision and sanctions through the BOP administrative remedy
program. Id.
Petitioner does not dispute that the Wolff requirements were met.3
Instead, he disputes the severity level of his offense. The applicable
program statement describes a Code 113, the offense charged, as
“[p]ossession of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or
related paraphernalia, not prescribed for the individual by medical
staff.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1. Narcan fits the definition of a drug.
ECF No. 7 at 7 & n.1. Petitioner does not dispute that the Narcan was
not prescribed for him. The offense was properly charged.
The offense charged was one of the greatest severity. 28 C.F.R.
§ 541.3, Table 1. Thus, a finding of guilt required the disallowance of at
least 41 days of good conduct time. 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.4(a)(2), (b)(1). In
addition, the DHO was authorized to 	impose 	additional sanctions
including forfeiture of up to 100 percent of nonvested good conduct time.
28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1(A)–(M). Because the sanctions imposed—
2 The severity level of the prohibited acts determines the range of possible sanctions
that may be imposed. 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.3(b) & 541.3, table 1.
3 In his reply, he argues that he did not receive 24 hours’ notice before the hearing.
ECF No. 112. This ground was not raised in the petition and the Court does not
consider new arguments first made in a reply. ECF No. 5 at 2. In any event, the record
reflects that the incident occurred and Petitioner was given notice on February 26,
2025, and the hearing occurred on February 28, 2025. It does not appear that
Petitioner objected to the timing of the hearing.
Case 4:25-cv-01051-P Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
forfeiture of 41 days and disallowance of 41 days—were authorized,
Petitioner cannot show error.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 9th day of February 2026.
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01051-P Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>