Holloway v. Superintendent

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/18/2016. (lhc)(cc: Holloway)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BRANDON R. HOLLOWAY,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-477

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Brandon
R. Holloway, a pro se prisoner, on October 13, 2015. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the petition pursuant to
Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DIRECTS the Clerk to close
this case.

DISCUSSION
Holloway filed this habeas corpus petition challenging REF
15-07-0009,

a

prison

disciplinary

proceeding

held

at

the

Indianapolis Re-Entry Education Facility where the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Intoxicants in violation
of B-231. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days
earned credit time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class
2 on June 10, 2015.

In

his

petition,

Holloway

raises

three

grounds

but

substantively they are all merely different ways of arguing that
there was insufficient evidence to have found him guilty. First,
he argues that there was no evidence against him because he passed
a urinalysis test, was not given a Breathalyzer, and did not have
his blood tested. Neither were any intoxicants found or seized.
Second, he argues that he was merely reported having been found
out of place in a sweet, sickly, smoky smelling room. Finally he
argues that one guard did not enter the room, but another stated
that the room was smoke filled.
The offense Intoxicants is defined as “Making or possessing
intoxicants, or being under the influence of any intoxicating
substance

(e.g.,

Disciplinary
available

Code
at

alcohol,
for

Adult

inhalants).”
Offenders,

Policy

Appendix

02-04-101,
I:

Offenses,

https://secure.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-

101_APPENDIX_I-OFFENSES_6-1-2015(1).pdf (emphasis added).
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.
McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999) (quotation
marks omitted). “[T]he 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,
455-56 (1985).
[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). 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). Such is the case here.
The conduct report states, “I, Ofc. Jumercado walked into
Room ‘D1N-09’, Resident – Holloway, Brandon DOC# 998565 was seen
out-of-place in a ‘sickly, sweet smoky smelling’ room (D1N-09)
along with 3 other residents – they were trying to spray blue
deodorizing chemical in room.” DE 1 at 4. It also states, “All 4
residents noted to have ‘red-blood-shot-eyes,’ while leaving unit
by this officer.” Id. Given the observations and report of that
officer, it was not arbitrary for the DHO to have concluded that
Holloway was under the influence of an intoxicant. Though there
are other possibilities as well, “[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 (1985).

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the petition
pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DIRECTS the Clerk
to close this case.

DATED: April 18, 2016

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court