Opinion
No. 3:02cv0206 AS
May 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
At the time of the filing of this case, pro se petitioner, Charles Miller, was incarcerated at the Maximum Control Complex Correctional Facility in Westville, Indiana in this district. Referring to numbers, there are three proceedings numbered CIC 01-02-0016, CIC 01-02-0020, and CIC 01-02-0018. Using the last two figures for ease of identification, 18 involves a destruction to state property, and the sanction was restitution. Under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), this Court lacks the authority and jurisdiction to consider that case. There has been compliance here with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982).
In 16, the proceeding commenced in the Correctional Industrial Facility on or about February 3, 2001, and ran through December 19, 2001 when the final reviewing authority denied appeal. There was compliance in the case with Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and this Court has examined the in camera material filed by the respondent through the Attorney General of Indiana.
Certainly, the evidence is sufficient under Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and especially under 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)
Case number 20 also occurred in February 2001. Incidentally, the Attorney General of Indiana has filed an appendix listing 17 exhibits which relate to all three of these conduct adjustment board (CAB) proceedings, and provides explicit documentation of the same. In 20, the issue was physically resisting staff, which involved also documents filed under seal. It is correct that these three proceedings are interrelated. There was a disciplinary proceeding in number 20 in February, 2001, in which this petitioner was accompanied by a lay advocate. His defense was that "I don't remember anything."
When it is all said and done, none of these three proceedings invoke a violation of the statutes, Constitution and treaties of the United States. See Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1088 (1989). Certainly, it must be remembered that violations of state law cannot be the basis for relief here under Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991).
In none of the three underlying cases is there any basis for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.