McNeeley v. Superintendent
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER denying 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/27/2014. (rmc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JESSE McNEELEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1703
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Petition under
28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by
Petitioner, Jesse McNeeley, on July 31, 2014 (DE #5).
For the
reasons set forth below the petition (DE #5) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
McNeeley was found guilty by the Disciplinary Hearing Body
(DHB) at the Westville Correctional Facility of possessing a
controlled substance in violation of B-202 on February 10, 2014.
As
a result of that hearing (WCC 14-02-55), he was deprived of 90
days earned credit time.
DISCUSSION
McNeeley argues that the DHB considered drug test results
which were classified as confidential and not shown to him.
However, the Screening Report (DE #5 at 10) indicates that McNeeley
did not request drug test results or any other physical evidence.
Moreover, “prison disciplinary boards are entitled to receive, and
act on, information that is withheld from the prisoner and the
public . . ..”
Cir. 2001).
White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th
McNeeley also objects that prison officials, rather
than the hearing officer, decided that the test results were
confidential.
However, the violation of a prison rule is not a
basis for habeas corpus relief, because “[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, 68 (1991).
McNeeley also argues that “the record is devoid of evidence
concluding possession of a ‘controlled substance.’” (DE #5 at 4.)
Though McNeeley has not submitted the drug test results because
they were not provided to him, here, the conduct report alone is
sufficient evidence to have found him guilty.
See McPherson v.
McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999).
“[T]he relevant
question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support
the
conclusion
reached
by
the
disciplinary
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
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.
2
board.”
Id. (quotations marks and citation omitted, emphasis added). Here,
the Conduct Report states:
On the above date and time, I Sgt. Pomeroy
located a composition book containing what
appeared to be a rolled cigarette containing a
green leafy substance. In the book was a state
form - Notice of Confiscated Property – with
offender McNeeley, Jessie #159364 name on the
form.
(DE #5 at 11.)
To satisfy due process, there need only be “some
evidence” in the record to support the disciplinary decision.
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985).
“This is a lenient standard, requiring no more than a
modicum of evidence.”
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th
Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, it was
not unreasonable for the DHB to have believed the officer’s eye
witness report that he found a green leafy substance in a cigarette
hidden in composition book.
So too, it was not unreasonable for
the DHB to have concluded that the book and the green leafy
substance belonged to McNeeley because it contained a form that had
been issued to him.
Finally, it was not unreasonable for the DHB
to have inferred that the green leafy substance which McNeeley was
hiding in the book was a controlled substance.
Though these are
certainly not the only conclusions that could have been reached,
“[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
3
(1985). Therefore, McNeeley has not presented any basis for habeas
corpus relief.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the amended petition (DE #5)
is DENIED.
DATED: August 27, 2014
/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?