Grevenstuk v. Superintendent
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Donald Grevenstuk. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4. Clerk DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 8/5/16. (cc: Donald Grevenstuk). (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DONALD GREVENSTUK,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-47-PPS
OPINION AND ORDER
Donald Grevenstuk, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging
the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 15-08-232) that was held at the Indiana State Prison
on September 10, 2015. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) found him guilty of
Possessing an Electronic Device in violation of B-207 and sanctioned him with the loss
of 60 days earned credit time. Grevenstuk raises only one ground in his petition.
He argues that there was no physical evidence presented during his hearing.
When he was screened he requested “All physical evidence.” [DE 1 at 5.] Specifically,
he wanted the electronic device (a phone charger) he was accused of having possessed.
In a prison disciplinary hearing, an inmate has a constitutional right to present relevant,
exculpatory evidence. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Exculpatory in this
context means evidence which “directly undermines the reliability of the evidence in
the record pointing to [the prisoner’s] guilt.” Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir.
1996). Here, Grevenstuk does not explain how having the phone charger at the hearing
could have been exculpatory. But more to the point, Grevenstuk knows that it was
impossible for the phone charger to have been brought to the hearing. As the Conduct
Report explained, “Offender Grevenstuk (194695) reached on the side of his toilet and
grabbed a phone charger and flushed it down the toilet.” [DE 1 at 6.] Because the
phone charger was gone, it was not a due process violation to have not produced it at
the hearing.
Grevenstuk goes on to argue that because the Disciplinary Hearing Officer did
not have the phone charger at the hearing, there was no evidence that he ever had a
phone charger. However, there was evidence. The Conduct Report was written by the
officer who saw him throw it in the toilet and flush it. “[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.” Webb v. Anderson, 224
F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citations 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. It was not
arbitrary for the Disciplinary Hearing Officer to have believed that the officer saw
Grevenstuk with a phone charger. That is sufficient evidence of his guilt and there is no
basis for habeas corpus relief in this case.
For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and
the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
2
ENTERED: August 5, 2016
_s/ Philip P. Simon________________
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF 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?