Opinion
No. 3:02cv0105 AS
August 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On February 7, 2002, pro se petitioner, Christopher Lewis, 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 July 29, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on August 12, 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. The disciplinary proceeding involving this petitioner was WVE 01-09-0020, in which this petitioner was found guilty of disorderly conduct, and in other sanctions was deprived of 30 days of earned credit time, which is barely enough to trigger the applicability of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The Attorney General of Indiana has placed before this Court a series of exhibits, numbers 1 through 12, documenting the proceeding which the Court has examined. Disciplinary proceedings occurred in the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, which is not located in this district, but apparently this petitioner is now located here. The incident occurred on or about September 8, 2001, and the proceedings followed the procedural mandates of Wolff, and 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).
This Court needs to give close attention to the issue raised with regard to the calling of witnesses, especially under 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). The petitioner requested witness statements from a Sergeant Thomas, Food Supervisor Jenkins, Lieutenant Springer, and an offender named Stults. These all provided witness statements to the petitioner, and he did not timely request witness statements from anyone else. He did not request such statements in a timely fashion under the accepted and regular rules. This Court does not conceive that there has been a substantial breach of the teaching of Ponte, nor of Forbes.
There is no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.