NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1753 __________ KAREEM HASSAN MILLHOUSE, Appellant v. WARDEN LEWISBURG USP ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-02444) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 15, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 21, 2019) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Appellant Kareem Millhouse appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm. Millhouse is an inmate currently confined at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”). While incarcerated at USP McCreary in Kentucky, Millhouse was charged with a Code 104 violation for possession of a weapon. The written charge was issued to Millhouse after a prison officer responded to an inmate’s medical emergency in Housing Unit 5B, cell 112. After the afflicted inmate was removed from the cell, the officer conducted a cell search for any drug-related items that might have contributed to the medical emergency; the officer found a homemade weapon hidden inside a slit near the middle of the mattress facing the wall side. The officer determined that the afflicted inmate did not live in that cell but that “Rodney” Millhouse, identified by his inmate number, was the sole occupant of cell 112. At a hearing before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”), Millhouse stated that the weapon was not his and noted the other inmate’s presence in his cell. He also stated that he had received the mattress two weeks earlier. The DHO considered the evidence, including Millhouse’s statements, the incident report, the written statement by the officer who discovered the weapon, and a photograph of the weapon. Millhouse had requested before the hearing that surveillance video be reviewed. The DHO did not personally view the footage but noted another officer’s findings that the footage was inconclusive because it did not show the cell’s interior. The DHO found that Millhouse had possessed 2 the weapon, constructively, in his assigned cell, explaining that Millhouse had the most control over his cell’s contents as the sole occupant. Further, the DHO rejected the suggestion that the inmate with the medical emergency might have put the weapon there, finding that it did not seem reasonable that someone in that condition would have been able to hide the weapon where it was found. The DHO sanctioned Millhouse with forfeiture of forty-one days of good conduct time, fourteen days of disciplinary segregation, and three months loss of commissary privilege. Millhouse’s administrative appeals were unsuccessful. Millhouse then filed his § 2241 habeas petition, claiming due process violations in his disciplinary proceedings concerning (1) the failure to provide twenty-four hours’ notice of the charge against ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals