Opinion
No. 3:02cv0371 AS
July 31, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On May 22, 2002, pro se petitioner, Brad Conley, 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 June 28, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on July 18, 2002.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. He was the subject of a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) proceeding, and the Attorney General of Indiana has been kind enough to place Exhibits 1 through 7 in the appendix to the Response which documents proceedings in MCF 02-01-0028. These proceedings commenced at the very beginning of 2002, and involved the ongoing issue of the improper possession of tobacco by inmates incarcerated in the Department of Corrections. The sanction included a deprivation of 90 days of earned time credit, which implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The petitioner seems to take the position that issuing the conduct report was somehow retaliatory and there was insufficient evidence. In any event, the procedures mandated by Wolff were followed, 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. 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 is well aware of the current basis for these events, as reflected in Cox v. McBride, 279 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002), Eads v. Hanks, 280 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2002), Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 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). This Court does not bottom any decision on harmless error.
It is very important to understand how this Court of Appeals perceives this species of proceeding, especially under White, and certainly under Montgomery. This Court is also well aware of the obligation to provide witnesses under appropriate and timely requests. See Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985), and Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 (1993), as well as Miller v. Duckworth, 963 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1992).
When it is all said and done, there is simply no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.