Opinion
No. 3:06cv0257 AS.
November 20, 2006
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER
On or about April 19, 2006, pro se petitioner, Lawrence Webster, an inmate at the Westville Correctional Facility (WCF) in Westville, 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 October 3, 2006, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982).
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. At the time of the filing of this petition he was incarcerated in the WCF in this district. He was the subject of a prisoner disciplinary proceeding entitled cause number WCC 05-12-0258 which sanctioned him for a loss of recreational privileges for 60 days, a $14.00 restitution for follow-up urinalysis, neither of which implicate a liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). He was also sanctioned with an earned credit time deprivation of 60 days which implicates Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). It appears that administrative remedies have been exhausted.
There has been compliance here with the procedural demands of Wolff, and the evidence here is sufficient under Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and under the "some evidence" test applicable in this circuit. See Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 999 (2000), McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999), and Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996).
The collateral review envisioned by § 2254 focuses on violations of the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States. See Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1990), and Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. den., 489 U.S. 1088 (1989). The focus is not on violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). See also Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1997). Technical violations of the Adult Disciplinary Procedures (ADP) are a species of state law under Estelle. Particularly, see Hester v. McBride, 966 F.Supp. 765 (N.D. Ind. 1997). Generally, a prisoner in these circumstances cannot raise issues for the first time in this court. See Nelson v. McBride, 912 F.Supp. 403 (N.D. Ind. 1996).
When it is all said and done, the petitioner has stated no basis here for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The same is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.