Izlar v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
James Izlar, Jr.
v. Civil No. 21-cv-393-SE
FCI Berlin, Warden
O R D E R
James Izlar, Jr. brought a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. no. 1. His petition
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Bureau
of Prisons’ (“BOP”) determination that he was guilty of a Code
217 violation.1 Id. at 1-3.
On March 22, 2022, Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
the undersigned judge dismiss the petition. Doc. no. 5 at 10.
The R&R reasoned that the BOP Discipline Hearing Officer’s
(“DHO”) decision “rested on evidence in the record that could
support the conclusion reached, satisfying the ‘some evidence’
standard required to protect Mr. Izlar’s due process rights.”
Id. (quotation and citations omitted); see also Superintendent,
1 A Code 217 violation is defined as “[g]iving money to, or
receiving money from, any person for the purpose of introducing
contraband or any other illegal or prohibited purpose.” 28
C.F.R. § 541.3, T.1.
Case 1:21-cv-00393-SE Document 7 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 3

2
Massachusetts Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454
(1985) (setting forth the “some evidence” standard).
The court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that the
petition, which asserts a single due process claim alleging that
the evidence before the DHO was insufficient to support a
finding that Izlar violated Code 217, does not state a valid
claim for relief. Izlar admitted that he received money from
another person for the purpose of purchasing commissary items
for Joseph White, while White was restricted from doing so. Doc.
no. 1 at 2. The BOP reasonably, and consistent with its own
regulations, determined that helping White circumvent his loss-
of-commissary disciplinary sanction was a prohibited purpose in
violation of Code 217. See Talk Am., Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel.
Co., 564 U.S. 50, 59 (2011) (explaining courts will defer to an
agency’s interpretation of its regulations unless the
interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the
regulations or there is any other reason to suspect that the
interpretation does not reflect the agency’s fair and considered
judgment on the matter in question). To the extent that the R&R
or Izlar’s objection discusses other claims, those claims were
not asserted in Izlar’s petition, and the court need not address
them here.
Case 1:21-cv-00393-SE Document 7 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 3

3
For these reasons, after due consideration of the objection
filed, I herewith approve the R&R of Magistrate Judge Andrea K.
Johnstone dated March 22, 2022, (doc. no. 5) to the extent that
it reasoned “some evidence” supports the DHO’s conclusion that
Izlar was guilty of a Code 217 violation. Izlar’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. no. 1) is
dismissed. The clerk shall enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Samantha D. Elliott
United States District Judge
May 25, 2022
cc: James Izlar, Jr., pro se
Case 1:21-cv-00393-SE Document 7 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 3