Donelson v. Pfister
Filing
67
ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/16/2016. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record and Stay Brown County Proceedings 61 is DENIED IN PART and RESERVED IN PART. The Court will not stay the Brow n County proceedings and will determine whether it must expand the record after considering the Petition, Respondent's Supplemental Answer, and Petitioner's currently pending Response. In light of this Order, Petitioner's Motion for Status 66 is FOUND TO BE MOOT. See full written Order.(SL, ilcd) Modified on 6/17/2016 (SL, ilcd).
E-FILED
Friday, 17 June, 2016 09:00:41 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
CHARLES DONELSON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY PFISTER, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 13-cv-1523
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Charles Donelson’s Motion to
Expand the Record and Stay Brown County Proceedings. (Docs. 61). Petitioner asks
the Court to expand the record of this habeas proceeding “by ordering Brown
County to send the file to this court and to stay their [criminal] proceeding until the
outcome of this case.” (Id. at 3).
Petitioner currently has one claim pending before this Court: whether a
prison adjustment committee that punished him with the revocation of one year of
good time credit denied him of his right to call witnesses and to present exculpatory
during a disciplinary hearing. “Due process requires that prisoners in disciplinary
proceedings, before being deprived of good time, be allowed to call witnesses and
present other evidence” unless the requests “threaten institutional goals or are
irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary.” Donelson v. Pfister, 811 F.3d 911, 917-18
(7th Cir. 2016).
It seems, from Petitioner’s motion, that the State of Illinois is prosecuting
him in Brown County, Illinois for at least some of the same events as those that the
adjustment committee considered in the challenged proceeding. (See Doc. 61 at 2
(“Brown County case is the subject of this habeas corpus petition disciplinary
report.”); see also Doc. 63 at 8 (“[P]etitioner was later convicted in a criminal
proceeding for the same assault on Officer Watson that was alleged in the
disciplinary report.”)).
On this basis, Petitioner asks the Court to stay the Brown County criminal
proceedings. (Doc. 61 at 3).1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251(a), a court before whom a
habeas corpus proceeding is pending may “stay any proceeding against the person
detained in any State court . . . for any matter involved in the habeas corpus
proceeding.” This allows district courts “to stay all state-court proceedings that have
the effect of defeating or impairing the federal court’s jurisdiction.” 17B Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4268.4 (3d ed).
The Court declines Petitioner’s request to stay the proceeding. Although the
Brown County criminal case may involve the same facts as the disciplinary
proceeding that Petitioner challenges in the pending habeas corpus petition, the
petition only challenges the lack of procedural due process that Petitioner says he
received from the adjustment committee. The Brown County criminal case is an
entirely separate proceeding; its outcome has no bearing on whether the adjustment
Petitioner requests that the Court stay proceedings in Brown County pursuant to
Rule 7(a) of Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District
Courts. However, Rule 7(a) says nothing about staying state court proceedings.
1
2
committee violated due process by refusing to allow Petitioner to call witnesses and
present exculpatory evidence during its proceeding.
Petitioner has also asked the Court to expand the record by ordering that the
Brown County court send it a copy of the file of the criminal matter. Under Rule
7(a) of Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts,
“the judge may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional
materials relating to the petition.” The purpose of the rule is “to enable the judge to
dispose of some habeas petitions not dismissed on the pleadings, without the time
and expense required for an evidentiary hearing.” Rule 7 of Rules Governing
Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts advisory committee’s note to
1976 adoption. At this stage, it is unclear whether an expanded record is necessary.2
Therefore, the Court takes Petitioner’s motion under advisement with respect to
this question.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the
Record and Stay Brown County Proceedings (Doc. 61) is DENIED IN PART and
RESERVED IN PART. The Court will not stay the Brown County proceedings and
will determine whether it must expand the record after considering the Petition,
Respondent’s Supplemental Answer, and Petitioner’s currently pending Response.
In light of this Order, Petitioner’s Motion for Status (Doc. 66) is FOUND TO BE
MOOT.
Based on the Court’s initial review of supplemental answer to the Petition, it does
not appear that Respondent has argued that the witnesses or evidence that
Petitioner wished to call or present to the adjustment committee lacked exculpatory
value or could have otherwise been excluded because they threatened institutional
goals or were irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary. (See Doc. 63).
2
3
Entered this 16th day of June, 2016.
s/Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?