Opinion
No. 3:01cv0844 AS
April 18, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 29, 2001, pro se petitioner, Billy Wood, an inmate at the Maximum Control Complex (MCC) 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 April 8, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on April 16, 2002, which this Court has carefully examined. This handwritten Traverse simply argues against the validity of the proceeding and cites Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996).
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by a court in the State of Indiana. The proceedings here were at the Westville Correctional Facility. In the final wrap-up of this proceeding, the final reviewing authority modified the earned credit time deprivation to 180 days with all the remaining sanctions left in place. There appears to be compliance here with the procedural demands of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and the evidence here is sufficient under the "some evidence" test in this circuit, as reflected in 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).
It is certainly understood here that there is a change in the judicial approach to these cases as reflected in Cox v. McBride, No. 01-1413 (7th Cir. January 29, 2002), Eades v. Hanks, No. 01-1720 (7th Cir. January 18, 2002), Piggie v. McBride, No. 01-2611 (7th Cir. January 17, 2002), White v. Indiana Parole Board, 266 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2001), and Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). See also Gaither v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2000). This Court does not bottom any decision here on harmless error.
For all of these reasons, the petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is now DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.