Gaines v. Superintendent
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/19/2013. (kds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TIMOTHY J. GAINES,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:12-CV-492
OPINION AND ORDER
Timothy J. Gaines, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition
challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE 1). For the
reasons set forth below, the petition (DE 1) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On May 29, 2012, Gaines was found guilty of failing to provide
a urine sample under cause number ISP # 12-05-0241. The charge was
initiated on May 21, 2012, when Corrections Officer W. Parnell
wrote a conduct report stating as follows:
On 5-21-12 at approximately 135 pm I Officer W. Parnell
instructed offender Timothy Gaines #983-65 to provide me
with a urine sample for testing. 8 ounces of water was
offered to the offender which was taken to help provide
a sample. At approximately 338pm over 2 hours later
offender Gaines still had not provided the required
urinalysis specimen.
(DE 8-1.)
On May 22, 2012, Gaines was notified of the charge. (DE 8-2.)
He pled not guilty and requested a lay advocate. (Id.) As physical
evidence, he requested “the cups that I pissed in,” as well as his
past drug tests which would show he “never had [a] dirty drop.”
(Id.) He also requested witness statements from Officer L. Hough,
Officer J. Sikorski, Sergeant M. McDaniel, Officer Parnell, and Dr.
Reinaldo
Matias.
(Id.)
Statements
were
obtained
from
these
witnesses prior to the hearing. Officers Hough and Sikorski both
stated that they were not present at the time of this incident. (DE
8-3, DE 8-4.) Dr. Matias stated that he had nothing to say about
the incident. (DE 8-6.) Officer Parnell stated, “Conduct report
stands as written.” (DE 8-7.) Sergeant McDaniel provided the
following statement:
On May 21, 2012, Sgt. McDaniel assisted in escorting
Gaines #983065 to the restroom of MSU for a urinalysis.
On two separate attempts, Gaines urinated in the specimen
cup, but not enough to satisfy the requirements of the
test. He was told by Ofc. Parnell both times that it was
not enough and to dump the inadequate amount of urine in
the toilet.1
(DE 8-5.)
On May 29, 2012, a hearing was held on the charge. (DE 8-11.)
In his defense, Gaines made the following statement: “I pissed 3
times. Sgt. McDaniels [sic] witnessed 2 of those tests. I didn’t
refuse.” (Id.) The hearing officer denied Gaines’s request for the
1
Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) policy provides in relevant
part: “If the offender fails to provide an adequate sample on the initial
attempt, staff shall empty the sample and keep the offender confined. Within the
original 2 hour time frame, staff shall give the offender a new specimen bottle
and directly supervise the offender when he/she indicates the ability to again
attempt to provide a specimen.” IDOC Manual of Policies and Procedures,
No. 01-02-107, Sec. X(E)(I). This is intended to reduce the risk of diluted or
adulterated samples. Id.
2
urinalysis cups, as they had been disposed of. (Id.) She further
denied the request for his past drug tests, finding them irrelevant
to the issue of whether he failed to give an adequate urine sample
on the date in question. (Id.) Upon considering the witness
statements and Gaines’s statement, the hearing officer found him
guilty. (Id.) As a result Gaines lost 30 days of earned time
credits. (Id.) His administrative appeals were denied. (DE 8-12, DE
8-13.) Thereafter, he filed this petition.
DISCUSSION
When prisoners lose earned time credits in a disciplinary
proceeding, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees
them certain procedural protections: (1) advance written notice of
the charge; (2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial
decision-maker; (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present
documentary evidence 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 (1974). To satisfy due process,
there must also be “some evidence” in the record to support the
hearing officer’s determination. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.
v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Gaines first claims he was denied the right to an impartial
decision-maker. In the prison disciplinary context, adjudicators
3
are “entitled to a presumption of honesty and integrity,” and “the
constitutional standard for improper bias is high.” Piggie v.
Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003). Due process prohibits a
prison official who was personally and substantially involved in
the underlying incident from acting as a decision-maker in the
case. Id. However, due process is not violated simply because the
hearing officer knew the inmate, presided over a prior disciplinary
case, or had some limited involvement in the event underlying the
charge. Id.
Here, Gaines does not elaborate on why he believes the hearing
officer was biased, but there is no indication that she was
involved in any way in the events underlying the charge. He appears
to believe that the hearing officer violated a number of internal
prison policies in connection with her handling of the case, but
even if this is true, it would not provide a basis for granting
federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
(1991) (federal habeas relief cannot be granted for violations of
state law); Hester v. McBride, 966 F. Supp. 765, 774-75 (N.D. Ind.
1997) (claim premised on violation of prison policy was not
cognizable in federal habeas proceeding). Nor do her adverse
rulings establish impermissible bias. Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994). Thus, Gaines has failed to establish a
violation of his federal due process rights.
4
Gaines also claims that the hearing officer’s written decision
was inadequate. The written statement requirement is “not onerous,”
and to satisfy due process “[t]he statement need only illuminate
the evidentiary basis and reasoning behind the decision.” Scruggs
v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the hearing
officer stated that in reaching her decision she considered witness
statements and Gaines’s statement. (DE 8-11.) She found Gaines
guilty, stating, “I believe the conduct report to be clear and
concise. Statement from Sgt. McDaniel supports the conduct report.
Therefore I’m finding Off. Gaines guilty.” (Id.) Although her
statement was not lengthy, it adequately identified the evidence
relied on and her reasoning, specifically, that the evidence
(including
the
statement
from
Gaines’s
own
witness,
Sergeant
McDaniel) showed that Gaines did not provide the requisite amount
of urine to be tested, despite being given two hours to provide an
adequate sample. The written statement the hearing officer provided
satisfied the minimal requirements of due process, and therefore
this claim is denied.
Gaines next claims that the evidence was insufficient to
support
the
guilty
finding.
In
reviewing
a
disciplinary
determination for sufficiency of the 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
5
to revoke good time credits has some factual basis.” McPherson v.
McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999).
“[T]he relevant
question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill,
472 U.S. at 455-56 (emphasis added). The court will overturn a
guilty finding only if “no reasonable adjudicator could have found
[the prisoner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence
presented.” Henderson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073,
1077 (7th Cir. 1994).
Here, Gaines was found guilty of failing to give an adequate
urine sample. There is some evidence in the record to support the
guilty finding, including the conduct report and the witness
statement from Sergeant McDaniel. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 457; see
also Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 988 (7th Cir. 2002) (witness
statements constituted some evidence); McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786
(conduct report provided some evidence to support disciplinary
determination). Gaines appears to argue that there was insufficient
evidence that he willfully refused to be tested, but this was not
the basis of the charge. Rather, he was charged with failing to
give an adequate sample, and the evidence on this point is more
than sufficient.2 Gaines clearly disagrees with the result the
2
IDOC policy provides that inmates will be disciplined if they refuse to
be tested, or if they fail to provide an adequate sample within the allotted time
period. IDOC Manual of Policies and Procedures, No. 01-02-107, Sec. II. Under the
policy, prison staff have discretion, but are not required, to permit the inmate
more time to provide a sample if they feel the circumstances warrant it. Id.,
Sec. X(E).
6
hearing officer reached, but it is not the role of this court to
reweigh the evidence and make its own determination of guilt or
innocence. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786. The sole question is whether
there
is
some
evidence
to
support
the
hearing
officer’s
determination and this standard is satisfied.
Gaines
appears
to
raise
another
claim
in
his
traverse
pertaining to the sanctions that were imposed. A traverse is not
the appropriate place to raise a new claim not contained in the
petition. See RULE 2(C)(1)
OF THE
RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES
(providing that all grounds for relief must be contained in the
petition).
In
any
event,
his
claim
is
premised
on
alleged
violations of prison policy, and as stated above, a violation of
prison policy does not provide grounds for granting federal habeas
relief. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68; Hester, 966 F. Supp. at 774-75.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE 1) is
DENIED.
DATED:
August 19, 2013
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
7
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?