Littler v. Superintendent
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the petition for habeas corpus. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 8/11/11. (jld) Modified on 8/12/2011 to correct document type (smp).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
PHILLIP MICHAEL LITTLER,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:11 CV 284 JM
OPINION AND ORDER
Phillip Michael Littler, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his prison disciplinary proceeding, held on January 10, 2011, at the
Indiana State Prison. At that hearing, he was found guilty of threatening or
intimidating in violation of B-213 and deprived of 15 days earned credit time.
Littler raises only one ground to challenge that finding. He argues that he
was not permitted to see the internal affairs investigative report, 10-ISP-170-IA,
regarding the incident underlying the disciplinary proceeding.
This is not a basis for habeas corpus relief because “prison disciplinary
boards are entitled to receive, and act on, information that is withheld from the
prisoner and the public . . ..” White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir.
2001). Therefore withholding the confidential report prepared by internal affairs
did not violate due process. Though Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)
guarantees the right to present relevant, exculpatory evidence, “Wolff concluded
that disciplinary boards need not place on the record all of the evidence that
influences their decisions. The Court recognized that considerations of
institutional security may militate against full disclosure.” White v. Ind. Parole Bd.,
266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir. 2001).
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 11, 2011
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?