Padilla v. FCI Berlin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Eladio Padilla
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-237-SM
Warden, FCI Berlin
Report and Recommendation
Eladio Padilla, who is proceeding pro se, brings a petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a disciplinary decision at
FCI Berlin in which he lost good time credits. In support of his
petition, Padilla contends that there is no evidence to support
the disciplinary hearing officer’s decision that he committed
the charged offenses. The Warden moves for summary judgment on
the ground that sufficient evidence supports the decision.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). A material fact is one that “carries with it the
potential to affect the outcome of the suit.” French v. Merrill,
15 F.4th 116, 123 (1 st Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). A material
fact is in genuine dispute if “a reasonable jury could resolve
the point in the favor of the non-moving party.” Id. The court
construes the record in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Benson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 14 F.4 th
Case 1:22-cv-00237-SM Document 13 Filed 02/03/23 Page 1 of 6

2
13, 17 (1st Cir. 2021). In considering a motion for summary
judgment, the court may review materials cited in the motion and
other materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(3).
Background
Padilla was an inmate at FCI Berlin in October of 2021 when
the incident at issue in the petition occurred. During the
morning of October 31, 2021, a prison staff member, A. Chenwi,
was conducting cell and pat-down searches in the unit where
Padilla lived. Incident Rep., doc. no. 1, at 11. Chenwi searched
Padilla’s cell, and when he was finished with the search,
Padilla said to Chenwi that he only searched cells of Hispanic
inmates and asked why he targeted Hispanic inmates. Id. Chenwi
denied targeting Hispanic inmates, but Padilla yelled at him
“‘as a man of color, you should mind the way you work in here,
or we will make you understand how things are.’” Id.
Chenwi then ordered Padilla to submit to a pat-down search,
which Padilla refused. After being told the consequences for
refusing a search, Padilla pulled his shorts down to the floor
and told Chenwi to search him. Id. Chenwi asked why he pulled
down his shorts, and Padilla responded “because that’s what you
want with Hispanic people.” Id. Padilla continued to yell at
Chenwi, who felt threatened, and called for assistance. Padilla
was escorted to the lieutenant’s office without resistance.
Padilla was charged with threatening another with bodily
Case 1:22-cv-00237-SM Document 13 Filed 02/03/23 Page 2 of 6

3
harm in violation of Prohibited Act Code 203 and indecent
exposure in violation of Prohibited Act Code 300. Padilla told
the Unit Discipline Committee (“UDC”) that all he did was ask a
question, that he never threatened the officer, and that he
complied with the officer. Padilla directed the UDC to review
the video footage. The UDC referred the charges to a
disciplinary hearing officer for a hearing and recommended loss
of 27 days of good time credits and 6 months of commissary.
A hearing was held before a disciplinary hearing officer on
November 18, 2021. Padilla had a staff representative for the
hearing and submitted a written statement. In the statement,
Padilla said the incident report was wrong because he challenged
the search of his cell after it happened not before, because he
could not understand the officer and thought he said “pants
down,” because assistance was called for a different inmate, and
because the charges are not consistent with his prison record.1
Doc. no. 10-1, at 9.
The hearing officer considered Chenwi’s written account of
the incident in the incident report, Padilla’s counseling report
for assaultive and sexually aggressive behavior in the past,
Padilla’s written statement, the video of the incident, still
1 The incident report states that Padilla made the challenge
to the search after it was completed which is consistent with
Padilla’s version of events.
Case 1:22-cv-00237-SM Document 13 Filed 02/03/23 Page 3 of 6

4
photographs from the video, and Padilla’s statement that “this
is all wrong.” Doc. no. 10-1, at 2. The hearing officer also
considered Padilla’s statements during the hearing (specifically
that he did not say the things reported by the staff member,
Chenwi, and that he only pulled his shorts to his knees) which
were contradicted by the video and by Padilla's later
statements. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the
hearing officer concluded that Padilla violated Code 300 and
Code 203. Padilla appealed those findings, but the decision was
upheld.
Discussion
In support of his petition, Padilla states that there is no
evidence to prove the elements of the charges against him and
that the hearing officer acted with reckless disregard of the
truth. The Warden moves for summary judgment on the ground that
there is evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s
decision, with the result that the petition must fail. Padilla
objects to summary judgment.
Prison inmates who are charged with disciplinary violations
are entitled to due process procedural protections before losing
good time credits. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 453,
(1985). A hearing officer’s decision that results in loss of
good time credits must be supported by “some evidence in the
record.” Id. at 454. The “some evidence” standard is satisfied
Case 1:22-cv-00237-SM Document 13 Filed 02/03/23 Page 4 of 6

5
even if the record evidence is only “meager” as long as the
record evidence could support the hearing officer’s
decision.” Id. at 455–56.
There is ample record evidence that Padilla threatened the
staff member. Padilla’s statement to the staff member, Chenwi,
“‘as a man of color, you should mind the way you work in here,
or we will make you understand how things are’” is threatening
on its face. That constitutes evidence of a threat of bodily
harm. Padilla’s arguments to the contrary are not supported by
the record and are not persuasive.
There is also ample record evidence of indecent exposure.
Despite several different stories, Padilla admitted that he
pulled his pants down in the common area. The hearing officer
reviewed the video of the incident and confirmed that it
happened. Padilla’s explanations in opposition to summary
judgment that the video is blurry and that he was wearing an
extra pair of shorts and only pulled down one pair are
unavailing.2
Because there is record evidence to support the hearing
officer’s decision that Padilla committed the two charged
offenses, the motion for summary judgment should be granted.
2 Padilla does not cite record evidence or provide an
affidavit or declaration to support his new theories. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Case 1:22-cv-00237-SM Document 13 Filed 02/03/23 Page 5 of 6

6
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant
the warden’s motion for summary judgment (document no. 10).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 3, 2023
cc: 	Eladio Padilla, pro se
Seth R. Aframe, Esq.
Case 1:22-cv-00237-SM Document 13 Filed 02/03/23 Page 6 of 6