United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank, United States Magistrate Judge.
Shondolyn Blevins has filed a second amended petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc.6).
Respondent (“the Government”) filed an answer,
providing relevant portions of the administrative record.
(Doc. 24). Blevins replied. (Doc. 27). For the reasons set
forth below, the undersigned recommends that the petition be
is currently confined at the Carswell Federal Medical Center
in Fort Worth, Texas. In this habeas action, Blevins
challenges a prison disciplinary conviction she received at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, Florida,
that resulted in the loss of good conduct time
August 21, 2016, Blevins was involved in an altercation with
a fellow inmate (“Inmate Doe”). Blevins claimed
that Inmate Doe assaulted her and that she merely defended
herself. Officer M. Harrell investigated the incident and, on
August 31, 2016, charged both inmates with violating
Prohibited Act 201 - Fighting with another person. (Doc. 6,
p. 3; Doc. 24, Ex. 2; see also 28 C.F.R. §
541.3, Table 1 - Prohibited Acts and Available
Sanctions). Blevins was charged in Incident Report No.
2890735. (Doc. 24, Ex. 2).
Winner delivered a copy of the Incident Report to Blevins on
August 31, 2016, and conducted his/her own investigation
where the following evidence was collected: (1) statements
from Blevins and Inmate Doe, (2) Officer Harrell's
investigative memorandum, (3) photographs of Blevins and Doe
taken after the incident and (4) medical assessments of
Blevins and Doe conducted after the incident. (Doc. 24, Ex.
2, pp. 1, 2). Lt. Winner referred the matter for a
disciplinary hearing. (Id., p. 2). Blevins received
notice of the hearing on September 4, 2016. (Doc. 24, Ex. 3).
disciplinary hearing was held on September 22, 2016. (Doc.
24, Ex. 5). Blevins appeared and was provided the assistance
of a staff representative, who spoke on Blevins' behalf.
(Id.). Blevins testified and called a witness, who
presented testimony through a written statement.
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”), Officer
Orr, found Blevins guilty of fighting with another person.
Officer Orr explained this decision in a written report dated
September 27, 2016:
The DHO finds you committed the prohibited act of fighting
with another person, code 201.
You stated you were ready to proceed. You request P.
Dahlstrom, Chaplin as your staff representative to assist you
in preparing your defense and [inmate's name redacted] as
your witness. Due to inmate [redacted] being in general
population and you are house in the Special Housing Unit a
secured unit she did not appeared before the DHO in person
due to security reason. However, she submitted a written
statement in your defense. You stated you understood your
rights before the DHO. You stated you received your copy of
the incident report. You have been afforded due process and
have had ample time to prepare a defense prior to the
It is the decision of the DHO that you committed the
prohibited act of code 201, fighting with another person.
This decision is based on the statement of the reporting
officer. Officer M. Harrell stated an investigation was
completed on August 31, 2016 and revealed on August 21, 2016
at approximately 7:30 a.m. Inmate [Doe], Reg. No. [redacted]
confronted you, in cub D03-013 in reference to something she
thought you was saying specifically that you was going to
whip her. You and [Doe] got into a heated verbal argument
which included name calling and it led to you walking out of
the cube and bumping into [Doe]. You and [Doe] exchanged more
words until she pushed you back into the corner of the cube
and stroked you in the face. You then scratch her about the
face and neck. Your finger came close to [Doe's] mouth
and she bit the pad of your left pointer finger. [Doe] and
you were medical assessed and received injuries consisted
with being in a physical altercation. Staff provided
photographs, medical assessments. Memorandums as evidence.
The DHO considered your medical assessment which indicated
you had multiple superficial scratches to the posterior upper
neck, numerous superficial scratches to the right shoulder,
three superficial scratches to the anterior neck-chine area
and a cut on the second (pointer) finger on the left hand.
Inmate [Doe's] medical assessment was completed on August
23, 2016 and shows no injuries; However she was photographed
with scratches to her face and neck. This is consistent with
the fact that you was scratching [Doe] about the face when
she bit your finger.
Your staff representative appeared before the DHO and stated
he reviewed the photographs and stated he observed starches
on [Doe's] upper lip and neck and you had starches on
your neck and jaw line.
You appeared before the DHO and stated I was not fighting she
had me on the wall and the stretches in my back came from a
hook on the wall. Your witness [inmate's name redacted]
wrote in her written statement. A fight took place in D/N
with two inmates. She reports one of the inmates was in front
of the other inmate cube starting drama. They said a couple
of words and it went from there the inmate hit first was
called [Doe]. She hit Shonata first and they started it going
meaning fighting each other.
The DHO determined based on the evidence above and the
greatest weight of the evidence you did commit the act
fighting with another person, code 201. The greatest weight
is considered the officer written report, SIS Investigation,
the medical assessments and photos of the both of you
documenting injuries sustained. Accordingly, it is the
finding of the DHO that you committed the prohibited act as
(Doc. 24, Ex. 5, p. 2) (spelling, typographical and
grammatical errors in original). The severity of Blevins'
offense was rated “High” pursuant to BOP
regulations. (Doc. 24, Ex. 5, p. 2; see also 28
C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1 - Prohibited Acts and
Available Sanctions, “High Severity Level
result of the conviction, Blevins lost 27 days of GCT, spent
20 days in disciplinary segregation, and lost telephone
privileges for 63 months. (Id.). DHO Orr provided
these reasons for the disciplinary action:
Fighting can lead to serious injury to both parties as well
as staff and could have escalated into a major confrontation
between inmates and/or staff and threatens the security of
the institution. The behavior displayed by this violation of
discipline could have led to a more serious injury to you,
and serious injury to the other inmate involved. Fighting
undermines discipline and cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
Disciplinary segregation was imposed due to the severity of
your offense. It is apparent that your adjustment in
population has been poor up to this point. Hopefully, this
sanction will influence your future decisions to commit
offenses such as these.
Good conduct time was disallowed because of the severity of
the offense and to deter this activity in the future. It is
apparent your conduct reflects poor institution adjustment
and does not warrant the same consideration for good conduct
time as those inmates following the rules and regulations of
the bureau of prisons.
Loss of privileges was imposed due to your poor institution
adjustment and behavior. This privilege is meant for those
inmates who follow rules and regulations and do not present a
management problem for staff or pose a threat to the security
of the institution, self, or others. It is apparent, that by
your conduct, you do not value these privileges.
These sanctions have been imposed to correct the present
inappropriate behavior and deter future behavior of this
type. The DHO hopes that the sanctions will motivate you