Opinion
No. 3:01cv0771 AS
May 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 29, 2001, pro se petitioner, John L. Williams, an inmate at the Westville Correctional Facility in Westville, Indiana, filed a petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Response filed on behalf of the respondent by the Attorney General of Indiana on March 6, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on May 10, 2002, which this Court has carefully examined.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. He was the subject of a prisoner disciplinary proceeding designated WCC 00-12-0024. He was found guilty of engaging in trafficking and sanctioned to a deprivation of 60 days of earned time credit and a demotion in credit earning class I to credit earning class III. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) is implicated. The disciplinary segregation between November 29, 2000 and December 14, 2000 apparently has been served and is thus moot.
The Attorney General has provided documentation with regard to the procedural details of this prisoner disciplinary proceeding. There has been compliance with the procedural demands of Wolff, and the evidence is sufficient under the same "some evidence" test in this circuit under Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 2000 WL 1512783 (U.S.), McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999), and Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996). There is a specific argument that the CAB did not consider any physical evidence. Apparently, there was no serious factual disputes, and certainly, the conceptual basis for these proceedings has been judicially reordered in such cases as Cox v. McBride, No. 01-1413 (7th Cir. January 29, 2002), Eades v. Hanks, No. 01-1720 (7th Cir. January 18, 2002), Piggie v. McBride, No. 01-2611 (7th Cir. January 17, 2002), White v. Indiana Parole Board, 266 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2001), and Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). See also Gaither v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2000). The CAB took into account the conduct report and the offender correspondence disposition form. Physical evidence is not necessarily required. See Hays v. McBride, 965 F. Supp. 1186 (N.D.Ind. 1997).
The collateral review that is envisioned by § 2254 focuses on violations of the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States. See Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. den., 489 U.S. 1088 (1989). The focus is not on violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991).
For all of these reasons, there is no basis here presented for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.