Butler v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/14/14. (smp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TAURUS BUTLER,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:14-CV-660

OPINION AND ORDER
Taurus Butler, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE 1.) The
Court is obligated to review the petition and dismiss it if “it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” RULE 4

OF THE

RULES

GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. For the reasons set forth below, the
petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND
In Cause Number ISP # 13-11-0309, Butler was found guilty of
possession of an electronic device. (DE 1-2 at 5.) The charge was
initiated on November 19, 2013, when a conduct report was written
after a cell phone and an electronic scale were found during a
search of Butler’s cell. (DE 1-2 at 3.) A hearing was held on
December 17, 2013, and Butler was found guilty. (Id. at 5.) His
administrative appeals were denied. (Id. at 6-7.)

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).
Here, Butler raises one claim in his petition: that his rights
were violated because the disciplinary hearing was held more than
seven days after the underlying incident in violation of Indiana
Department of Correction (“IDOC”) policy. (DE 1-1 at 1-2.) He
argues that if the hearing was going to be delayed, he should have
been

given

a

“State

Form

49521

Postponement

of

Disciplinary

Hearing” notice as required by the policy. (Id.) However, even if
he is correct, a violation of IDOC policy would not entitle him to
federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
(1991) (habeas relief is only available for a violation of federal
law); Hester v. McBride, 966 F. Supp. 765, 775 (N.D. Ind. 1997)
(violation of IDOC policy in disciplinary proceeding could not
support grant of habeas relief, since federal habeas court “does
not sit to correct any errors of state law”). Therefore, Butler’s

2

petition does not present any cognizable basis for granting federal
habeas relief.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE 1) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to RULE 4

OF THE

RULES GOVERNING

SECTION 2254 CASES.

DATED:

April 14, 2014

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3