Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Page: 1 of 4
Case: 15-13654
Page: 2 of 4
disciplinary report from his record and restoration of the good-conduct time he
lost. On appeal, Anderson argues that: (1) there is no evidence to support finding
him guilty of fighting with another inmate; (2) the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
violated his due process rights by not providing him with a video of the fight that
was the subject of the disciplinary hearing; and (3) he was denied his right to
present witnesses, two inmates who would have exonerated him, by the BOPs
failure to timely conduct his hearing before the discipline hearing officer (DHO).
After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo the district courts denial of habeas relief under 2241.
Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th Cir. 2011). A district courts factual
findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed.
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Because
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional requirement in a
2241 proceeding, we can deny a 2241 petition on the merits without addressing
exhaustion. Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th Cir. 2015).
The Supreme Court has held that the following minimum due process
procedures are required in a prisoners disciplinary proceeding: (1) at least 24
hours notice of the charges so that the prisoner can prepare for the hearing; (2) a
written statement by the factfinder detailing what evidence was relied upon and
why disciplinary action was taken; and (3) the qualified right to call witnesses and
2
Case: 15-13654
Page: 3 of 4
In
Case: 15-13654
Page: 4 of 4