Victor Villegas v. Duke Terrell, etc., No. 09-3251 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. District court did not err in dismissing petitioner's Section 2241 habeas petition as petitioner had received a full hearing before being denied good time credit, the hearing board made adequate written findings and there was some evidence to support the decision.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3251 ___________ Victor Villegas, Appellant, v. Duke Terrell, Warden, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 14, 2010 Filed: May 19, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Victor Villegas appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 petition with prejudice. In his petition, Villegas alleged that he had been improperly denied 40 days of good time credit when a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) relied on insufficient evidence to determine that he had committed a disciplinary violation. After careful de novo review, see Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court did not err in its 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. dismissal since Villegas s petition showed that he had received a full hearing before the DHO, the DHO had made written findings sufficient to meet procedural due process requirements, and there was some evidence in the record supporting the DHO s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985) (some evidence must support decision by prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits; relevant question is whether there is any evidence in record that could support conclusion reached by disciplinary board); Dible v. Scholl, 506 F.3d 1106, 1110 (8th Cir. 2007) (in prisoner disciplinary proceeding, prisoner must receive advance written notice of charges, opportunity to call witnesses and present defense, and written statement of evidence relied upon by fact finder and reasons for disciplinary action); cf. Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 679-80 (8th Cir. 1990) ( some evidence standard met where contraband was found in locker and inmate argued that another inmate had admitted placing it there). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
