Opinion
No. 3:02v0479 AS
September 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 10, 2002, pro se petitioner, Stephan J. Clippinger, an inmate at the Indiana State Prison (ISP) in Michigan City, 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 September 12, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on September 24, 2002, which this Court has carefully examined. The Attorney General has placed before this Court a massive array of documents, namely Exhibits 1 through 21, both inclusive, which explicate the prisoner disciplinary process involved here in great detail.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. He was involved in a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of possession of escape paraphernalia. He was demoted to credit class II and deprived of 180 days of earned credit time and six months disciplinary segregation. The 180-day deprivation of earned credit time implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), but the six months in disciplinary segregation does not. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). These proceedings had to do with a period of time in January 2002, and the evidence in this case is in compliance with the demands of Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), as well as the so-called "some evidence test in this circuit. See 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).
This Court does not bottom any decision here on harmless error. The administrative review was appropriate, the evidence is sufficient, and the alleged violation of the ADP standards implicate state law questions under Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). See also Hester v. McBride, 966 F. Supp. 765 (N.D.Ind. 1997).
The prison officials are not required to give free choice to inmates in disciplinary proceedings to select their own lay advocate. The facts in this case were simple and straightforward, including the finding of escape paraphernalia in this petitioner's cell on January 16, 2002, and indeed this petitioner was accompanied by a lay advocate named Wright at the hearing. That complies with the requirements in Wolff.
For all of these reasons, there is no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.