Greyenstuk v. Superintendent
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER: Denying petition pursuant to § 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/31/11. (jld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DONALD C. GREYENSTUK,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:11-CV-344
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody filed by Donald C. Greyenstuk, a pro se prisoner, on
August 29, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is
DENIED pursuant to § 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4.
BACKGROUND
Donald C. Greyenstuk, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas
corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary proceeding held
on January 19, 2010, by the Prison Disciplinary Body (DHB) at the
Indiana State Prison in case ISP 11-01-0032. At that hearing, he
was found guilty of Tampering with a Locking Device in violation of
B-226 and sanctioned with the loss of 15 days earned credit time
and
ordered
to
pay
restitution
in
the
amount
of
$796.25.
Greyenstuck raised two grounds to challenge the finding of guilt.
DISCUSSION
Greyenstuck argues that there was insufficient evidence to
find him guilty. He argues that the evidence against him was not
overwhelming and that there was evidence that could have supported
a not guilty finding. He also argues that other inmates had the
opportunity to have placed the 20 pieces of metal inside the lock
on his cell.
In evaluating whether there is adequate evidence to support
the findings of a prison disciplinary hearing, “the relevant
question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support
the
conclusion
reached
by
the
disciplinary
board.”
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). “The Federal
Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any
conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at
457.
In reviewing a decision for some evidence, courts are not
required to conduct an examination of the entire record,
independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the
evidence, but only determine whether the prison
disciplinary board’s decision to revoke good time credits
has some factual basis.
Id. (quotations marks and citation omitted). Even a conduct report
alone can provide evidence sufficient to support the finding of
guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999).
Here, the Conduct Report states,
When I checked B313 the electric lock was stuck in the
open position. When I took the lock apart I found over 20
pieces of cut up can inside the lock. The metal from the
-2-
can caused the electronic lock to short out making the
cell unusable until a new lock is ordered. Offender
Greyenstuk #194695 was housed in cell B313 from 8-25-10
until 11-27-10 when the lock was reported broke.
ECF 1-1 at 2. This is some evidence that Greyenstuk tampered with
his lock. “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a
criminal
prosecution,
and
the
full
panoply
of
rights
due
a
defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Though Greyenstuk argues that other
inmates might have been able to have placed the metal pieces inside
the lock after he was moved, it was not unreasonable for the DHB to
have found that Greyenstuk was more likely to have tampered with a
lock on the cell he was occupying then for other inmates to have
tampered with the lock on an empty cell.
In addition, Greyenstuk argues that the conduct report was
written too long after the incident occurred and that the DHB only
had two members. “In conducting habeas review, a federal court is
limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Though Greyenstuk argues that prison policy
requires that conduct reports be written within 24 hours of the
incident, there is no federal right to have charges brought so
quickly. Neither is there a federal requirement for a three member
board. Though
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 550 (1974),
requires an impartial decision maker, it does not define how many
factfinders are required.
-3-
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DENIED
pursuant to § 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4.
DATED:
August 31, 2011
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
-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?