Inghels v. Superintendent
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER denying, pursuant to 28:2254, the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/2/2013. (kds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SHANE INGHELS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
NO. 3:13-CV-1226
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Shane
Inghels on November 25, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the
petition (DE# 1) is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Shane Inghels, a pro se prisoner, is challenging the prison
disciplinary proceeding (WCC 12-08-494) held by the Westville
Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (“DHB”) on August
24, 2012, where he was found guilty of possessing Security Threat
Group (“STG”) materials in violation of B-208. He was sanctioned
with the loss of 40 days earned credit time. The Report of Conduct
states:
On the above date and approx. time I Sgt. Stoll
performed a shake down / inventory of offender Inghels,
Shane # 988545 property when I came across STG related
material. Names and numbers of offenders with SK’s at the
bottom of it. This was confirmed by IA STG investigator
V. Stinson to be STG related information. Other material
was found and sent to IA.
(DE# 1-1 at 1). Inghels list four grounds in his petition.
First, Inghels says that he was not provided with the evidence
against him by the screening officer. There is no obligation that
he be provided with the evidence against him at the screening
hearing – only that he be notified of the factual basis of the
charges against him. See Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 911 (7th
Cir. 2003). Inghels states that the conduct report was read to him
during the screening hearing. The conduct report clearly informed
him that he was charged with possessing the “names and numbers of
offenders with SK’s at the bottom of it.” (DE# 1-1 at 1). SK is an
abbreviation for a prison gang that Inghels admitted to being a
member of. (DE# 1-1 at 4).
Moreover, even if this had been a due process violation it
would have been harmless because the outcome of the hearing would
have been the same. See Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660 (7th Cir.
2003) (Harmless error analysis applies to prison disciplinary
proceedings.) At the DHB hearing, Inghels immediately recognized
the evidence against him as a list of his volleyball teammates and
requested a statement from Mr. Hood confirming this. The DHB
adjourned to investigate and determined that it was unnecessary to
obtain a list of volleyball members because the names on the list
were confirmed to be members of the SK gang. That is to say, being
on a volleyball team with other members of his gang did excuse him
2
from punishment for possessing a list of gang members. So the
outcome would have been the same even if he had seen the list
during his screening hearing and therefore this is not a basis for
habeas corpus relief.
Second, Inghels argues that there was insufficient evidence to
have find him guilty of possessing STG material. He argues that the
list of inmate names and numbers was also his volleyball team and
that none of the photographs of his teammates are of them doing
anything
gang
related.
This
misses
the
point.
As
previously
explained, it is irrelevant that Inghels was on a volleyball team
with other members of his gang. So too, it is irrelevant that the
photos do not depict gang activity. The amount of evidence needed
to support a finding of guilt in prison disciplinary hearings is
very modest; there need only be “some evidence” to support the
decision of the prison disciplinary board. Superintendent, Mass.
Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). A
reviewing court must uphold a finding of guilt if “there is any
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached”
by the board. Id. at 455-56. What is relevant here is that the list
and the photos at issue are of gang members. Because they were,
there is sufficient evidence to have found Inghels guilty of
possession STG materials.
Third, Inghels argues that the screening report inaccurately
indicates that he waived his 24 hour notice before the DHB hearing
3
was conducted. He argues that he did not waive his right to 24 hour
notice and that by mistakenly writing this on the screening form,
it violated prison policy. However, “[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). Therefore it is
irrelevant in this proceeding whether a prison policy was violated.
Moreover, Inghels was screened on August 20, 2012, and his hearing
was not conducted until four days later on August 24, 2012.
Fourth, Inghels argues that after he was found guilty, he
filed a grievance complaining that his hearing was unfair. He
alleges that his grievance was denied. This argument has nothing to
do with the disciplinary charge that Inghels is challenging in this
habeas
corpus
petition.
The
issue
here
has
to
do
with
his
possession of STG materials, not his grievance. Nothing about the
grievance process has any bearing on whether he is entitled to
habeas corpus in this case. Therefore this ground presents no basis
for habeas corpus relief.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE# 1) is
DENIED.
DATED:
December 2, 2013
/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?