Opinion
1:12-cv-207-WTL-DML
10-02-2012
SHERON GLADNEY, Petitioner, v. BRIAN SMITH, Respondent.
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This is an action in which Sheron Gladney seeks a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. as IYC 11-12-0084.
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(a) only if it finds the applicant Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.@ Id. Because habeas petitioner Gladney fails to show that this is the case with respect to the challenged disciplinary proceeding, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action dismissed.
The evidence favorable to the decision of the conduct board Henderson v. United States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1993) (a federal habeas court Awill overturn the . . . [conduct board=s] decision only if no reasonable adjudicator could have found . . . [the petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence presented"), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 314 (1994), is the following: Following a visit from his Aunt on December 11, 2011, Gladney was found in possession of a crumpled paper containing marijuana. This evidence supported the hearing officer's determination that Gladney had violated prison rules through his use or possession of a controlled substance.
Indiana state prisoners have a liberty interest in their good-time credits and therefore are entitled to due process before the state may revoke them. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974); Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004). The right to due process in this setting is important and is well-defined. Due process requires the issuance of advance written notice of the charges, a limited opportunity to present evidence to an impartial decision-maker, a written statement articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it, and Asome evidence in the record@ to support the finding of guilt. See Superintend., Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564, 566, 570-71 (1974); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
Under Wolff and Hill, Gladney received all the process to which he was entitled. That is, the charge was clear, adequate notice was given, and the evidence was sufficient. In addition, (1) Gladney was given the opportunity to appear before the hearing officer and make a statement concerning the charge, (2) the hearing officer issued a sufficient statement of its findings, and (3) the hearing officer issued a written reason for the decision and for the sanctions which were imposed.
Gladney's claims that he was denied the protections afforded by Wolff and Hill are either refuted by the expanded record or based on an assertions which do not entitle him to relief. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary action in any aspect of the charge, disciplinary proceeding, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Gladney to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: Sheron Gladney
No.952465
Plainfield Correctional Facility
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
All Electronically Registered Counsel