Opinion
No. 3:02cv0082 AS
May 16, 2002
ORDER
On January 28, 2002, pro se petitioner, Rick Hill, 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 April 29, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on May 15, 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. He was the subject of a prison disciplinary proceeding which found him guilty of attempting to give or accept from any person anything of value without proper authorization. His sanction included a loss of 90 days earned time credit and a time class demotion from Class I to Class II. That implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The Attorney General of Indiana has provided to this Court extensive documentation with reference to the proceeding, which went forward in August, 2001. There was compliance with the procedural demands of Wolff. At screening, the petitioner requested and received a lay advocate and also requested a correction officer-investigator as a witness. The decision of the conduct adjustment board (CAB) panel on October 2 is in writing, and is adequate. Indeed, the evidence is sufficient under Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and certainly adequate under the standards applicable 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).
There is a suggestion here that the argument about insufficient evidence was not raised in the administrative appeal and is foreclosed by Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1992). This Court considers that Markham is still a viable precedent in this circuit, notwithstanding the cases of Cox v. McBride, No. 01-1413 (7th Cir. January 29, 2002), Eades v. Hanks, No. 01-1720 (7th Cir. January 18, 2002), Piggie v. McBride, No. 01-2611 (7th Cir. January 17, 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). However, the evidence remains sufficient that is available. This Court will not bottom a decision on Markham specifically.
Generally, the amount of sanction may be a state law question. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991), but certainly, in this case it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or § 2254. Therefore, the petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.