Howard v. United States Bureau of Prisons

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, where an incident report indicated that prison officers discovered a hypodermic syringe among an inmate’s legal papers, there was evidence to support the disciplinary conviction despite the fact that the inmate “did not have actual possession of the” syringe
• holding contraband found in petitioner’s shared cell constituted “‘some evidence’ sufficient to support the disciplinary sentence on a theory of constructive possession”
• explaining that § 2241 petition is properly filed in the district where the prisoner is confined at the time of the filing
• noting that prison officials could not know if a videotape was “needlessly cumulative without looking at it”
• observing that the record provided “strong inferential support” that the petitioner requested that the DHO review video evidence
• holding 2 that Federal Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to produce and review a videotape violated habeas 3 petitioner’s due process right to present documentary evidence in his own defense in prison 4 disciplinary proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).