Opinion
No. 3:02cv0026 AS
June 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On January 11, 2002, pro se petitioner, Larry Norris, 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 June 4, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on June 21, 2002, and had previously filed a petition in support of the habeas petition on February 20, 2002. Both are considered together here.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. Once again, the petitioner was charged with possession of tobacco on or about July 19, 2001, and on July 31, 2001, a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) found him guilty of that charge and sentenced him to a deprivation of 60 days of earned time credit. Such implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). He raises two issues. One, the sufficiency of evidence which a careful examination of the record in this case turns out to be more than sufficient under the relevant standards in this circuit. See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), as well as 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 bottom any decision on harmless error.
Further argument is made with regard to an impartial tribunal under Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 (1984). Although the Court is flattered by the citation of Vukadinovich v. Board of Trustees of Michigan City, 978 F.2d 403 (7th Cir. 1992), but a better citation would be Wolff and Redding. This Court would prefer not to rely specifically on the presumption in Vukadinovich. There is simply a failure to establish any arguable basis under Redding that would undermine the procedures in this case.
There is no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.