Opinion
No. 3:06cv0122 AS.
September 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER
On or about September 23, 2005, pro se petitioner, Albert Apple, an inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility in Bunker Hill, Indiana (MCF), 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 July 21, 2006, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982).
This petitioner was the subject of a prison disciplinary proceeding designated as WVD 05-06-0202 in which he was sanctioned with an earned credit time deprivation of 60 days and a suspended sanction of a credit class demotion from credit class I to credit class II. There was also a one-month loss of commissary privileges and a written reprimand. Only the 60-day credit time deprivation implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
There has been compliance here with the procedural demands of Wolff, and the evidence here is sufficient under Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and under the "some evidence" test applicable in this circuit. See Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 999 (2000), McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999), and Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996). This court does not here bottom any decision under harmless error and is not convinced that this petitioner was denied evidence so as to violate a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The focus is not on violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). See also Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1997). The collateral review envisioned by § 2254 focuses on violations of the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States. See Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1990), and Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. den., 489 U.S. 1088 (1989).
When it is all said and done, the petitioner has presented no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such relief is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.