Nastassia Frees v. Michael Segal, No. 23-2979 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before, Loken, Smith, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas Corpus. The district court did not err in denying the ? 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in a loss of good conduct time, where some evidence supported the hearing officer's decision that petitioner had aided the possession of a drug not prescribed for another inmate by the medical staff.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2979 ___________________________ Nastassia (Goff) Frees, also known as Nastassia Goff lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Michael Segal, FCI Warden lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2024 Filed: April 19, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal prisoner Nastassia Frees appeals the district court’s1 order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. in the loss of good conduct time. Following de novo review, we conclude that “some evidence” supports the hearing officer’s decision that Frees aided the possession of a drug not prescribed for another inmate by the medical staff. See Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977, 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). A guard saw Frees allow another inmate access to her own prescription bottle of medication for a higher dosage than prescribed to the other inmate, constituting a violation under the plain language of the disciplinary code or a reasonable interpretation of it. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
