Hall v. Calbone ( 1999 )

No. 98-10866
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10866
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH N. HALL, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SAM CALBONE, Warden PCI Big Spring;
ANGIE SHEFFER; SAL SEANEZ; D. STONE, Lieutenant;
ROGER BAXTER; WILLIAM A SMITH,
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-311
- - - - - - - - - -
May 24, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph N. Hall, Jr., prisoner # 13874-018, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
challenging a disciplinary hearing finding that Hall encouraged
others to riot and the resulting sanction of the loss of 41 days of
good-conduct time. Hall argues that 1) the investigation report
indicating that he was given the disciplinary charge and read his
rights before the hearing had been fabricated, 2) the disciplinary
hearing officer (DHO) did not consider certain evidence, 3) the DHO
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 98-10866
-2-
was not impartial, 4) the district court should have conducted an
evidentiary hearing, 5) the district court did not rule on two of
Hall’s discovery motions, and 6) the district court erred in
dismissing Hall’s civil rights claims.
The record supports the district court’s finding that, even if
the investigation report was false and Hall did not receive the
disciplinary charge on October 25, 1995, he received notice of the
charge on October 27, 1995, three days before the disciplinary
hearing. No due process violation existed regarding whether Hall
received adequate notice of the charge prior to the hearing. See
Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994)(citing
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974)).
The record further indicates that the DHO’s decision was
supported by some evidence and that the DHO did not witness the
incident subject of the disciplinary charge and was thus not
biased. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir. 1986);
Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248, 253 (5th Cir. 1984). The district
court was able to resolve Hall’s claims without the taking of
additional evidence, and an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary.
See Lawrence v. Lensing, 42 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 1994).
Contrary to Hall’s contention, the district court ruled on
Hall’s motions to compel the production of documents and for a
default judgment, and the district court’s ruling was not an abuse
of discretion. See McKethan v. Texas Farm Bureau, 996 F.2d 734,
738 (5th Cir. 1993).
Even if some of Hall’s claims would not necessarily implicate
the invalidity of the disciplinary ruling, as indicated by the
No. 98-10866
-3-
district court, see Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.
1998)(citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)), given
that Hall’s constitutional claims are without merit, he would not
be entitled to relief. The district court’s dismissal of these
claims was not error. See Bickford v. International Speedway
Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981) (we may affirm on
grounds different from those employed by the district court).
AFFIRMED.