Opinion
No. 3:01cv0765 AS
July 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 26, 2001, pro se petitioner, K. Marshall Foster, an inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility 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 March 7, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on July 1, 2002, which this Court has carefully examined.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. Since there is no statute of limitations anymore in this circuit with regard to these proceedings, there are two separate proceedings involved here which have been grouped together in one case. They are MCF 01-07-0142 and MCF 01-07-0183. Both of them involve the same petitioner, charge, and sanction. This Court, however, will presume that they are not concurrent sanctions. In any event, the sanctions of the loss of 60 days of earned credit time implicate Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). In both, there has been compliance with the procedural mandates of Wolff, and in both, the evidence is sufficient under 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 re-weigh the evidence, but that function is left to the Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB). Certainly, the so-called issue under chain of custody would reference Webb, and would not present a constitutional issue. 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).
It is not for this Court to attempt to retry these proceedings involving possession of tobacco, and notwithstanding the protestations of this petitioner in his Traverse filed on July 1, 2002, and under the applicable standards following Wolff, the evidence here is sufficient and no constitutional violation has been shown.
Therefore, there is no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.