Cain v. Superintendent
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Jamarcus A Cain pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/10/2015. (cc: Petitioner) (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMARCUS A. CAIN,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-235 RM
OPINION AND ORDER
Jamarcus A. Cain, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 15-02-153) where the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Westville Correctional Facility found him guilty of
Assault on Staff on February 13, 2015, in violation of A-117 and sanctioned him with the
loss of 365 days earned credit time and demoted him to Credit Class 3. Mr. Cain
presents four grounds in his petition, but all of them argue that there was insufficient
evidence to have found him guilty. He also argues that prison policies were violated.
The violation of a prison policy is not a basis for habeas corpus relief. “In 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).
Mr. Cain argues that there was insufficient evidence for the DHO to have found
that he assaulted a guard causing serious injury. In evaluating whether there is
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, 455456 (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). Even a Conduct Report alone can be sufficient evidence to support a finding
of guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). That’s the case here.
The Conduct Report states:
On 2/3/15 at approximately 5:20 pm, I (Officer Garza) was
supervising the juice line in the GSC Chow Hall when I witnessed
Offender Cain, Jamarcus #988172 attempting to steal juice packets
through the serving window. I ordered Offender Cain to stop and he
disregarded the order and continued to attempt to steal the juice. I then
secured a grip on Offender Cain’s right forearm with my right hand and
he then pulled away from me, bending my fingers to the back which
resulted in breaking the bones in my right hand.
DE 1-1 at 3. Though Mr. Cain disputes that this is what happened, “[i]n 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. at 457 (quotations marks and
citation omitted). “The 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. at 457. The evidence here was sufficient to have found
Mr. Cain guilty. Officer Garza stated in his report that Mr. Cain bent his fingers back
and broke them. Though Mr. Cain argues that pulling away isn’t an assault, doing so in
2
a way that breaks fingers by bending them backwards is an assault. Moreover, broken
fingers are clearly a serious injury.
For these reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED pursuant to
Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED
ENTERED: November 10 , 2015.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court
3
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?