King v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the habeas corpus petition pursuant to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/1/2014. (kds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TOMMY LEE KING,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT
Respondent.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-097 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
Tommy Lee King, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging a
prison disciplinary proceeding (MCF 13-08-092) held at the Miami Correctional Facility on
August 16, 2013. The disciplinary hearing body found him guilty of assault and battery in
violation of B-212 and demoted him from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Mr. King argues
that there is no evidence of a victim and no evidence that anyone saw him hit anyone. He
acknowledges that he had a black eye.
In deciding whether there was adequate evidence to support the findings of a prison
disciplinary hearing, “the 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). Even a conduct report alone can provide evidence
sufficient to support the finding of guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir.
1999). The conduct report stated:
On August 6, 2013, at approximately 1955 I (Sgt Fisher) was called to
come to AHU 3/4 side on arrival I witnessed Ofd King, Tommy 166648
coming out of cell 421/422 with Ofc. Nix. As they were approaching the

podium I noticed Ofd King had redness blow his left eye. At this time I
escorted him to OSB1 to get checked out. Once inside the front door Ord
King stated to Ofc. Larimore and myself that he got into a fight with his
buddy but everything is just fine [now]. In offenders Kings property was a
white Hanes t-shirt with blood spots on it.
DE 1-1 at 1.
During the hearing, Mr. King said that he got a black eye when he fell from his
bunk, but the disciplinary body chose to believe Officer Fisher’s statement in the conduct
report.
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.
Id. at 457 (quotations marks and citation omitted).
[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only] have the support of
some evidence in the record. This is a lenient standard, requiring no more
than a modicum of evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as the
record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary board
were without support or otherwise arbitrary. Although some evidence is not
much, it still must point to the accused’s guilt. It is not our province to assess
the comparative weight of the evidence underlying the disciplinary board’s
decision.
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks, citations,
parenthesis, and ellipsis omitted). Officer Fisher’s statement in the conduct report is
sufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt. For the foregoing reasons, the court
DENIES the habeas corpus petition pursuant to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4.
SO ORDERED.

2

ENTERED: December 1 , 2014

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United State District Court

3