Clements v. Dobre ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-40451
    Summary Calendar
    BERNEL CLEMENTS, JR.,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    JOHNATHON DOBRE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    __________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:00-CV-478
    __________________________________________
    September 17, 2001
    Before POLITZ, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Bernel Clements, Jr., federal inmate #24606-034, appeals the district court’s
    dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition. He contends that his right to due process
    was violated during prison disciplinary proceedings because the prison officials did
    not produce and review a videotape of the events that occurred at the prison during
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    the pertinent time. He also contends that he is actually innocent of the charge of
    participating in a riot.
    “[P]rison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned only where there is no
    evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison officials.”1   Clements
    was not charged with participating in a riot but, rather, he was charged with refusing
    to obey an order to return to his unit. The charge of which he was found guilty was
    refusing an order in furtherance of a riot. The record before us adequately supports
    the finding of guilty as to this charge.
    Clements has not shown that he requested production of the videotape during
    the disciplinary proceedings. He candidly concedes that the videotape would not
    have established whether he heard the announced order to return to his unit. On
    balance, the record demonstrates that Clements was afforded the requisite due
    process during the prison disciplinary proceedings.2 Accordingly, the judgment of
    the district court is AFFIRMED.
    1
    Reeves v. Pettcox, 
    19 F.3d 1060
    , 1062 (5th Cir. 1994).
    2
    Wolff v. McDonnell, 
    418 U.S. 539
    , 564-66 (1974).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-40451

Filed Date: 9/18/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021