Markley v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the petition pursuant to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 3/11/2014. (kds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SETH MARKLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-454 WL

OPINION AND ORDER
Seth Markley, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison
disciplinary hearing (MCF 12-09-164) held by the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) at the Miami
Correctional Facility on September 9, 2012, where he was found guilty of Attempted Trafficking
in violation of A-111/113. Markley objects to not having seen the Internal Affairs file and argues
that he was denied the ability to present evidence. However, the confidential file was presented to
the DHB and “prison disciplinary boards are entitled to receive, and act on, information that is
withheld from the prisoner and the public . . ..” White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir.
2001). Nevertheless, Markley argues that there was not sufficient evidence to find him guilty.
[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). Here, the Conduct Report says “I, T. Buffum, while monitoring phone calls during
an investigation (See attached [CONFIDENTIAL] Report of Investigation of Incident), did hear

offender Seth Markley Conspire to commit the offense of Trafficking with his mother, Rebecca
Markley (former offender DOC# 151121) during the time period of 6/29/12 through 8/6/12. This
is a violation of IDOC Policy.” DE 1 at 4. This is some evidence of guilt. It is more than sufficient.
The officer heard Markley talking to his mother about illegally trafficking at the prison. Even if the
calls had never been recorded, what the officer saw (or in this case heard) is evidence.
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.
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985) (quotations marks and citation omitted). In this
case, the DHB’s decision has some factual basis. Therefore Markley is not entitled to habeas corpus
relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to 2254 Habeas
Corpus Rule 4.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: March 11, 2014
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court

2