Opinion
No. 3:02cv0309 AS
September 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 26, 2002, pro se petitioner, William Fletcher, 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 August 16, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on August 30, 2002, which this Court has carefully examined. There has been extensive documentation filed that is relevant to this case and the proceedings that were involved. In fact, there are exhibits A-1 through A-15, both inclusive which this Court has examined.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. The incidents that caused this case to come forward occurred at the Indiana State Prison (ISP) in Michigan City, Indiana on or about April 18, 2001. Apparently at the nurses station at the ISP on that day, this petitioner was in a wheelchair and he is charged with running the wheelchair into a nurse named Welche and injuring her. Apparently, it is charged that the petitioner in doing so committed intentional battery. He was charged with that offense and sanctioned by a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) to a deprivation of 90 days earned time credit, and demoted from credit class II to credit class III. Apparently, the earned credit time was suspended, which raises a question of whether Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) applies here. If it does not, then the case falls within Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
In any event, the procedures mandated by Wolff have been followed. The trier of fact here, the CAB, could have found on the basis of the record that this petitioner engaged in a deliberate battery with the wheelchair, and attempted to injure Deborah Welche, a nurse in the performance of her duties at the ISP. Certainly the evidence of that conduct is of such a nature that the evidence 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). All of that may be superfluous since the case looks like one that actually falls within the ambit of Sandin. In either event, there is no basis for relief. Certainly the challenge to the impartiality of the CAB is governed in this circuit by cases such as Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 (1984), as well as Merritt v. De Los Santos, 721 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1983). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any of the requirements for impartiality under Redding or Merritt.
With regard to the argument made about the modification of the conduct violation, that is a state law question governed under Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991), and is not implicated under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
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.