Irby v. Superintendent

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: The habeas corpus petition 1 is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 7/21/2015. (cc: Irby)(rmc)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15 CV 86

OPINION AND ORDER
Freeman Irby, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the
prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 14-10-033) that was held at the Indiana State Prison on
November 1, 2014. The Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of being a
Habitual Rule Violator in violation of B-200 and sanctioned him with the loss of 30 days
earned credit time. Irby raises two grounds in his petition.
First, he argues that it was a due process violation for him to have been screened
by the same officer who wrote the conduct report. “An inmate facing disciplinary
charges has the right to an impartial decisionmaker. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
571 (1974). However, the screening officer is not the decisionmaker. The screening
officer is merely the person who notifies the inmate of the charges and asks what if any
evidence he wants to present. (See DE #1 at 4.) Here, it was Officer A. Boyd who wrote
the Conduct Report and the Screening Report. (DE #1 at 4-5. However, it was Officer N.
Rodriguez who conducted the Disciplinary Hearing. (DE #1 at 9.) This did not violate
due process and Ground One is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

Second, Irby argues that he was denied a continuance of his disciplinary hearing.
Though Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), requires that an inmate be given 24 hour
advance written notice of the factual basis of the charges against him, it does not require
that he be granted a continuance: “Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976), warns the
court of appeals not to add to the procedures required by Wolf, which, Baxter held,
represents a balance of interests that should not be further adjusted in favor of
prisoners.” White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 768 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, Irby was
notified of the charges against him on October 18, 2014. (DE #1 at 4.) On October 22,
2014, the hearing was postponed due to “Staff heavy work load.” (DE #1 at 7.) On
November 1, 2014, Irby’s request for a continuance was denied. (DE #1 at 8.) The
hearing was held that same day. (DE #1 at 9.) Irby’s hearing could have been held the
day after he was notified of the charges. However it was not conducted for two weeks.
Irby had adequate notice and time to prepare for the hearing. Therefore, Ground Two is
not a basis for habeas corpus relief.
For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to Section
2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
Date: July 21, 2015
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT