Johnson v. Superintendent
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING the Petitioner leave to proceed on ground one of his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus; DISMISSING ground two of the amended petition. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 11/26/2012. (cc, with amended petition: Indiana Attorney General; and Superintendent, Miami Correctional Facility)(lyf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DENNIS L. JOHNSON, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Miami
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-479 PS
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Dennis Johnson, a prisoner confined at the Miami Correctional Facility,
submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dealing with loss of
earned credit time at a prison disciplinary hearing. This matter is before the Court on the
Petitioner’s Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus (DE 10).
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, district courts are
obligated to review a habeas corpus petition and to dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” This rule provides
district courts with a gatekeeping responsibility to sift through habeas corpus petitions and
dismiss those petitions which obviously lack merit.
Where prisoners lose good time credits at prison disciplinary hearings, the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees them certain procedural protections, including (1)
advance written notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision
maker; (3) opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense when
consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals; and (4) a written statement by the fact
finder of evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). There must also be “some evidence” to support the decision of the
prison disciplinary board.” Supt., Mass. Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
According to the amended petition, the disciplinary hearing officer found Johnson guilty
of assault inflicting serious injury, took 180 days of earned credit time from him, and demoted
him to a lower credit time earning classification (DE 10 at 1). In ground one of his petition,
Johnson asserts that “the evidence relied upon to find me guilty . . . was insufficient” (DE 10 at
8). Giving Johnson the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled to at this stage of the
proceedings, this ground may state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In ground two of his amended petition, Johnson asserts that he “believe[s] that Sgt.
Heishman violated D.O.C. policy by using excessive force,” thus creating an environment
conducive to possible injury upon both Heishman and Johnson (DE 10 at 11). But violations of
prison policies do not state a claim for federal habeas relief. Hester v. McBride, 966 F.Supp. 765,
774-75 (N.D.Ind. 1997); see also Boyd v. Finnan, 348 Fed. Appx. 160, 162 (7th Cir. 2009)
(finding that claim of prison’s violation of Indiana’s Adult Disciplinary Procedures was a state
law claim that did not justify collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). This claim does not
implicate any of the due process protections afforded to prisoners by Wolff, 418 U.S. at 455.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the Petitioner leave to proceed on ground one of his amended petition for
writ of habeas corpus (DE 10);
(2) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Court, DISMISSES ground two of the amended petition; and
2
(3) DIRECTS the clerk’s office to ensure that a copy of this order is served on the
Respondent and the Indiana Attorney General along with the amended petition and the order to
show cause.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 26, 2012
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES 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?