Opinion
No. 3:02cv0071 AS
July 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On January 24, 2002, pro se petitioner, Jesse Sullivan, Jr., an inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility (MCF) 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 July 8, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on July 8, 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. He was the subject of a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) proceeding which sanctioned him for the loss of 60 days earned credit time, which implicates Wolff v. McD onnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The Attorney General of Indiana has been kind enough to lay records of the proceedings before this Court designated as Exhibits 1 through 8.
The event was almost a year ago on August 30, 2001. This petitioner threw his meal tray onto the day room floor after a correctional officer had served him his evening meal. He was charged with disorderly conduct and found guilty by a CAB and sanctioned as aforesaid. The matter went through administrative appeals and the sanction stood. He argued that there is not sufficient evidence, and frankly, that argument must fail under the standards enunciated in Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and particularly the "some evidence" test in this circuit under Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 20 00), 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).
Although apparently there was some effort to dig up a video, it has been a specific determination that none existed. There is a claim of prejudice by a member of the CAB. The sanction is not under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is not conceived that there is a serious Eighth Amendment problem here. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). This Court does not bottom its decision on harmless error. There does not seem to be any preservation of the argument about the prejudice of one of the members under Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir. 19 83), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 (1984). There is no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.