Dudley v. Connor ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 17, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41058
Summary Calendar
GENE E. DUDLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
N. L. CONNOR, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-187
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gene E. Dudley, federal prisoner # 10961-045, commenced this
28 U.S.C. § 2241 action challenging, inter alia, a November 2,
2000, disciplinary hearing which found him guilty of disobeying
an order. As a result of this proceeding, Dudley lost 13 days of
good-time credit. The district court denied the petition as it
related to the disciplinary hearing and dismissed the petition as
to Dudley’s remaining claims for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Dudley argues that the district court
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41058
-2-
erred in denying his requests for discovery and an evidentiary
hearing. He contends that his due process rights were violated
when the disciplinary hearing officer cut off his staff
representative’s statement and did not allow him to present his
report. Dudley requests the appointment of counsel on appeal and
asks this court to take judicial notice of his petition for a
writ of mandamus.
Dudley admits that he was able to present testimony at the
disciplinary hearing and the witness that he requested testified.
Even assuming that the disciplinary hearing officer cut off his
staff representative before he finished making his statement,
Dudley’s conclusory allegations, which do not identify any
exculpatory information that the staff representative could have
provided, do not establish that he was not able to adequately
present his case at the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, he has
not stated a constitutional claim. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 564-66, 570 (1974). Likewise, Dudley’s assertion that
the district court erred in denying his motions for an
evidentiary hearing and discovery are without merit. See United
States v. Fishel, 747 F.2d 271, 273 (5th Cir. 1984). The
district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Dudley’s motions for judicial notice and for the appointment
of counsel are denied.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.