Young v. Superintedent
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING this petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DIRECTING the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/1/2013. (lyb) ***Civil Case Terminated
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MARQUIS YOUNG,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-165
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Amended Petition under
28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody filed by Marquis Young, a pro se prisoner, on May 29,
2012. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES this
petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DIRECTS the Clerk to close
this case.
BACKGROUND
Marquis Young, a pro se prisoner, was found guilty of assault
on staff in violation of A-117 by the Disciplinary Hearing Body
(“DHB”) at the Westville Correctional Facility on October 23, 2011,
under cause number WCC 11-10-082. He was sanctioned with the loss
of 365 days earned credit time and demoted from credit class 1 to
credit class 3. Young raises four grounds in his habeas corpus
petition.
DISCUSSION
In ground one, Young argues that the officer he assaulted did
not follow prison policy and call a “signal 20” when the attack
occurred. However, the violation of a prison policy is irrelevant
because “[i]n 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). There is no federal requirement that State prison
guards call a “signal 20” when they are attacked; therefore this
presents no basis for habeas corpus relief.
In ground two, Young argues that the DHB did not review the
video of the incident. This is incorrect. The Hearing Report (DE
#12-8) indicates that the video was considered and the Video Review
Sheet (DE #12-7) provides a summary of the video. Young states that
the incident occurred in front of the door and the summary report
states, “Door not visible in Camera’s view.” Id.
In ground three, he alleges that he was denied the opportunity
to call two witnesses. However, he did not raise this claim during
his
administrative
appeals,
and
therefore
it
is
procedurally
defaulted. Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002)
(“[T]o exhaust a claim, and thus preserve it for collateral review
under § 2254, a prisoner must present that legal theory to the . .
. Final Reviewing Authority . . . .”).
2
In ground four, he alleges that he was found guilty because he
is larger than the guard. This is incorrect. Though the size
difference may have made it more believable that he was able to
push the guard into the wall, the Hearing Report (DE #12-8) makes
it clear that Young was found guilty because the hearing officer
believed the guard’s statement in the Conduct Report that Young
pushed her and caused the cuts on her hand. See McPherson v.
McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999) (even a conduct report
alone can provide evidence sufficient to support the finding of
guilt.)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES this petition for
writ of habeas corpus, and DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case.
DATED: November 1, 2013
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
3
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?