Opinion
No. 3:01cv0578 AS
April 1, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 13, 2001, pro se petitioner, William Sides, 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 February 27, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). This Court also has a filing made by this petitioner on March 28, 2002, which it has carefully examined.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. He has been the subject of a conduct adjustment board (CAB) proceeding there, denominated ISP 00-03-0081. At the end of that proceeding, the sanctions included six months of disciplinary segregation, which has now been served, the sum of $325.00 in restitution, and an earned time credit deprivation of 180 days. The latter sanction implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
The Attorney General has attached to the Return in this case a series of exhibits denominated A-1 to A-16, which explicate the proceedings. It is also apparent that this petitioner has a somewhat different spin on the evidence that was heard by the CAB proceeding. Generally, that evaluation is left to the discretion of the board, unless there is a violation of the Constitution, statutes and treaties of the United States. The procedures mandated by Wolff have been followed, and the evidence is within the strictures of Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). It is certainly within the scope of "some evidence" 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). In spite of the best efforts of this petitioner, the proceedings comport substantially with the requirements of Wolff and Superintendent.
For these reasons, the petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.