Opinion
No. 3:05cv0631 AS.
March 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER
On or about October 4, 2005, pro se petitioner, Marty Arnett, an inmate at the Correctional Industrial Facility in Pendleton, Indiana (CIF), 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 January 19, 2007, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982).
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. At the time of the filing of this petition he was incarcerated in the CIF, not located in this district. However, the relevant conduct appears to have occurred in this district. There was a Conduct Adjustment Board apparently at the CIF which occurred on April 22, 2004, designated as IYC 04-04-0138. The evidence summarized in the papers of this case appear to be sufficient under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), as well as Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). There is certainly a "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).
It is of some moment here to consider the nature of the weapon and where it was found as analyzed under Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1992). When Hamilton is considered in the context of the string of cases including McPherson-Meeks-Webb, there is no basis for relief here presented under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and such is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.