Opinion
No. 3:01cv0674 AS.
March 19, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 25, 2001, pro se petitioner, William Bewley, an inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility (MCF) in Bunker Hill, 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 December 21, 2001, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The Appendix to the Response filed by the Attorney General in Exhibits 1 through 9 document this proceeding. This petitioner filed a Traverse on March 14, 2002.
The prison disciplinary proceeding involved a conviction of battery without serious injury for the use of a weapon. A sanction was imposed for 84 days of earned time credit, which implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). There has been compliance with the procedural demands of Wolff, and the evidence presented is sufficient under Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and certainly the so-called "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) .
The recent decisions in this circuit are descriptive of the current view there as to the nature of these proceedings. See 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). These decisions are binding precedents on this Court until they are changed by someone in appropriate judicial authority.
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). See also Hester v. Mc Bride, 966 F. Supp. 765 (N.D.Ind. 1997) .
There is no basis shown by this petitioner for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.