Opinion
No. 3:01cv0878 AS.
February 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 10, 2001, pro se petitioner, Darrell B. McGinnis, 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 February 8, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on February 15, 2002.
At the time of the filing, Mr. McGinnis was shown as being incarcerated in the Spencer County Law Enforcement Center in Rockport, Indiana, which is within the territorial area of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. However, it also appears that this petitioner may also be incarcerated in Miami Correctional Facility (MCF) in Bunker Hill, Indiana in this district. There, he was involved in a prisoner disciplinary proceeding, and was by that process deprived of 60 days of previously earned credit time and demoted in time earning class from Class I to Class II. This Court has before it the documentation from the MCF regarding this prison disciplinary proceeding.
The factual setting, however, apparently was from the Branchville Training Center, which is within the territorial area of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On July 28, 2001, at that facility near the visiting area in the women's restroom, tobacco and pills were found. An investigation ensued, including minor conversations between an offender named Clark and his wife who apparently told her how to package tobacco and pills and where to place them "for the porter". It is alleged that this petitioner was the porter in that area who was to pick up the packages and divide them. The petitioner made several visits to the women's restroom in question without carrying any cleaning supplies. He was charged on or about August 23, and a hearing pursued which procedurally meets the demands of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The administrative appeals have been completed and the original sanctions remain in place.
The evidence here would appear to be in the variety of "some evidence" 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). This Court does not intend to bottom any decisions on harmless error. The procedural mandates were followed and the evidence is sufficient under Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). It was for the CAB to weigh and consider the evidence. It is not for this Court to gainsay their determinations of credibility. The remaining claims of this petitioner appear to be procedurally defaulted under Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1992).
There is no basis disclosed here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this regard, the pro se filing made by this petitioner on February 15, 2002 fundamentally reargues the case. The petition is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.