Pierce v. Superintendent

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion for Relief from Order. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/4/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RONALD J. PIERCE,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-032

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Relief From
Order, filed by Ronald J. Pierce, a pro se prisoner, on March 2,
2017 (DE #16). Pierce asks this Court to reconsider its order
dismissing his habeas corpus challenge to the prison disciplinary
hearing where he was found guilty of possession of a cellular
device. Pierce lodges his argument under Rule 60 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. “Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary
remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Karraker
v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831, 837 (2005) (quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Here, Pierce argues that his habeas petition should have been
granted because he was denied a photograph showing the location
where the cell phone and charger was found. This argument is not
new. In its dismissal order, the Court explained that the requested
photo was not material and, moreover, because the evidence was not
-1-

in existence, Pierce was not entitled to the creation of evidence.
Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 812 n. 13 (8th Cir. 1988); Hester
v. McBride, 966 F.Supp. 765, 773 (N.D. Ind. 1997). Although he does
not like this conclusion, Pierce has not demonstrated any manifest
error of law or fact.
“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal
prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such
proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556
(1974). “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). As more fully explained in the order of dismissal, the
prison disciplinary hearing and resulting conviction did not run
afoul of any of these laws. Thus, this case was properly dismissed
and Pierce has not presented an exceptional circumstance requiring
that he be granted Rule 60(b) relief.
For these reasons, the motion (DE #16) is DENIED.

DATED: April 4, 2017

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

-2-