United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief
United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may
serve and file written objections to this recommendation.
Objections should be specific and should include the factual
or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a
factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the
evidence that supports your objection. An original and one
copy of your objections must be received in the office of the
United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen
(14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations.
The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to
file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to
appeal questions of fact.
are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit
new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing
for this purpose before the Chief District Judge, you must,
at the same time that you file your written objections,
include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a
hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at
the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy,
or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial
evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
this submission, the Chief District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your
objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
Wheelock, an inmate at the Forrest City - Low Federal
Correctional Institution, filed this Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 on May 18, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) Mr. Wheelock
demands the Court “enter a writ forthwith ordering that
these constitutional violations are corrected
immediately.” (Doc. No. 1 at 7.) Petitioner is
challenging the prison's policy to collectively punish
all inmates in a unit for contraband found in the common
areas of those units. For the following reasons, I find the
Petition should be DISMISSED.
April 6, 2018, Deputy Captain Price sent a memorandum thru
Warden Beasley to the “Inmate Population.” (Doc.
1 at 8.) The memorandum states that if officials find
“hard contraband” in the common area of a unit,
inmates will lose privileges. (Id.) The “hard
contraband" in question includes drugs, alcohol,
weapons, tobacco, escape paraphernalia, cell phones, etc.
(Id. at 13.) The memorandum further establishes
that, for each offense, the punishment will increase.
(Id. at 8.)
asks the Court to issue an injunction to prevent the prison
from imposing such a policy. (Id. at 7.) However,
the denial of Petitioner's privileges fails to implicate
his constitutional right to due process. Sandin v.
Conner,515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). Therefore, granting
habeas relief in any form would be inappropriate. See
Ware v. Morrison, 276 F.3d. 385 (8th Cir. 2002).
Inasmuch as Petitioner claims a "safety issue" and
exposure to violence, his claims are ...