White v. Superintendent
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER denying habeas corpus petition pursuant to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 12/20/12. (smp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
FABIAN WHITE,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:12 CV 766
OPINION AND ORDER
Fabian White, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his
prison disciplinary proceeding which was held at the Westville Correctional Facility on
February 22, 2012. The Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Arson in
violation of B-222. White was punished with the loss of 20 days earned credit time. He
raises three grounds in this petition.
First he argues that there was not some evidence to support the finding of guilt.
“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.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th
Cir. 1999) (quotations marks and citation omitted). “[T]he 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). In this case, there
is some evidence. Mr. White explains that “On February 3, 2012, Officer Quarnstrom
smelled smoke on the unit during a security check of B-Pod. He conducted a search of
my cell (B5-102), and claimed to also ‘smell smoke’ in my cell.” (DE # 1 at 4). Though
the officer’s claim that he smelled smoke in White’s cell is some evidence, that assertion
is also corroborated by White who acknowledges that he too could smell smoke in his
cell.
Second, White argues that the DHB failed to consider several exculpatory
statements that the burning smell was coming from the vents into every cell on the B5
section of the pod. However, district court’s do not re-weigh evidence presented during
prison disciplinary hearings. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999).
Though it is possible that the burning smell was coming from the vents, “[t]he Federal
Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the
one reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985).
Finally, White argues that he was denied the opportunity to submit video
evidence to corroborate his testimony and the testimony of his witnesses. White and
others testified that Officer Quarnstrom went from cell to cell, but only entered White’s
cell. Though Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974), permits an accused inmate the
right to present relevant, exculpatory evidence, prisoners do not have the right to
present evidence which “would be irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary.” Pannell v.
McBride, 306 F.3d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, the video evidence would have merely
duplicated the testimony already presented. The exclusion of such duplicative evidence
is permitted because “[p]rison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the
2
hearing within reasonable limits.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).
Moreover, a video showing Officer Quarnstrom going from cell to cell is not
exculpatory because it would not be able to provide any evidence as to what he was
able to smell while he was in the hall. Certainly the smell of smoke would be stronger in
a cell where something was burning, but it would not have been unreasonable for the
DHB to have concluded that Officer Quarnstrom was able to identify the intensity and
direction of a smell merely by moving around the hall outside of the cells.
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is now DENIED pursuant
to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Date: December 20, 2012
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?