"To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority." Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 F. App'x 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-982 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that, because Indiana law does not provide for judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings, § 2254(b)(1)'s exhaustion requirement demands that the prisoner present his claims at both levels of the IDOC's administrative appeals process)). See also Wilson-El v. Finnan, 263 F. App'x 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2008) ("A petitioner is generally required to exhaust all of his available administrative remedies before seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. If the petitioner fails to do so and the opportunity to raise that claim in state administrative proceedings has lapsed, the petitioner has procedurally defaulted his claim, and a federal court is precluded from reviewing the merits of his habeas petition.") (internal citations omitted); Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002) ("That procedural default means . . . that state remedies were not exhausted, and precludes consideration of this theor
Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) ("To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority.").
Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) ("To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority.").
But such ex parte communications do not, standing alone, violate due process. SeeJackson v.Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007); Williams v. Superintendent, No. 3:16-cv-067, 2016 WL 4140926, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2016). Further, there is no basis to conclude that the communication rendered the DHO so impartial as to present a “hazard of arbitrary decisionmaking.” SeeWolff, 418 U.S. at 571.
Still, there is no dispute that the process exists and consists of two steps, as Mr. Jones presented administrative appeals to the facility head and appeal review officer. Dkts. 11-7, 11-8; see also Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) ("To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority.").
Mr. Arnold (1) failed to abide by the June 22, 2021, notice to resubmit his case to the Final Reviewing Authority once he received the Facility Head's appellate decision, dkt. 9-11, and (2) disregarded the July 2, 2021, Facility Head denial notice which contained a similar instruction on how to continue to the final step in the appeal process, dkt. 9-8. "To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the Facility Head and to the Final Reviewing Authority." Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-982 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that, because Indiana law does not provide for judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings, § 2254(b)(1)'s exhaustion requirement demands that the prisoner present his claims at both levels of the administrative appeals process)). Mr. Arnold has not fully presented his claims to the Final Reviewing Authority.
Because he did not present those two issues in his appeals, he may not pursue them in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) ("To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority.")
Still, there is no dispute that the process exists and consists of two steps, as Mr. Jones presented administrative appeals to the facility head and appeal review officer. Dkts. 11-7, 11-8; see also Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) ("To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority."). There also is no dispute that Mr. Jones failed to raise the denial of his transcript request in his administrative appeals.
"To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority." Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 F. App'x 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Moffat, 288 F.3d at 981-982 (holding that, because Indiana law does not provide for judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings, § 2254(b)(1)'s exhaustion requirement demands that the prisoner present his claims at both levels of the IDOC's administrative appeals process)). See also Wilson-El v. Finnan, 263 F. App'x 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2008) ("A petitioner is generally required to exhaust all of his available administrative remedies before seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. If the petitioner fails to do so and the opportunity to raise that claim in state administrative proceedings has lapsed, the petitioner has procedurally defaulted his claim, and a federal court is precluded from reviewing the merits of his habeas petition.") (internal citations omitted); Moffat, 288 F.3d at 982 ("That procedural default means . . . that state remedies were not exhausted, and precludes consideration of this theory under § 2254 . . . .").
"To avoid procedural default, an Indiana prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the facility head and to the Final Reviewing Authority." Jackson v. Wrigley, 256 F. App'x 812, 814 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-982 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that, because Indiana law does not provide for judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings, § 2254(b)(1)'s exhaustion requirement demands that the prisoner present his claims at both levels of the administrative appeals process)). The respondent argues—without any elaboration—that Mr. Jefferson "failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this claim."