Davis v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER: The 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Samuel Davis, Jr. is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/12/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party via e-file)(lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SAMUEL DAVIS, Jr.,
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-609-RLM
OPINION AND ORDER
Samuel Davis, Jr., a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 13-01-366) where a Disciplinary
Hearing Officer found him guilty of Assault/Battery in violation of Indiana
Department of Correction policy A-102. As a result, Mr. Davis was sanctioned with
the loss of 365 days earned credit time and was demoted from Credit Class 1 to
Credit Class 2. Mr. Davis’s petition identifies four grounds for relief.
Mr. Davis’s petition is premised on an argument that the Department of
Correction failed to follow its own policies in imposing sanctions against him. Even
if Mr. Davis is right, the Department of Correction’s failure to follow its own policy
doesn’t rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.
62, 68 (1991) (“state-law violations provide no basis for federal habeas relief”);
Keller v. Donahue, 271 F. App’x 531, 532 (7th Cir. 2008) (finding that inmate’s
claim that prison failed to follow internal policies had “no bearing on his right to
due process”). Nevertheless, this court will analyze each of Mr. Davis’s four
grounds to determine whether any ground identifies a due process violation
entitling him to habeas corpus relief.
In Ground One, Mr. Davis argues that the hearing officer improperly denied
his requested witness, the victim of the attack. The respondent argues that
Ground One wasn’t presented during Mr. Davis’s administrative appeals, so he
hasnt exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Ground One. In
habeas corpus proceedings, the exhaustion requirement is contained in 28 U.S.C.
Indiana does not provide judicial review of decisions by prison
administrative bodies, so the exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b) is satisfied by pursuing all administrative remedies. These
are, we held in Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1992), the
sort of "available State corrective process" (§ 2254(b)(1)(B)(I)) that a
prisoner must use. Indiana offers two levels of administrative review:
a prisoner aggrieved by the decision of a disciplinary panel may
appeal first to the warden and then to a statewide body called the
Final Reviewing Authority. Moffat sought review by both bodies, but
his argument was limited to the contention that the evidence did not
support the board’s decision. He did not complain to either the
warden or the Final Reviewing Authority about the board’s sketchy
explanation for its decision. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119
S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999), holds that to exhaust a claim, and
thus preserve it for collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must
present that legal theory to the state’s supreme court. The Final
Reviewing Authority is the administrative equivalent to the state’s
highest court, so the holding of Boerckel implies that when
administrative remedies must be exhausted, a legal contention must
be presented to each administrative level.
Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-982 (7th Cir. 2002).
Mr. Davis didn’t raise Ground One in his administrative appeals, so Ground
One is procedurally defaulted.1
In Ground Two, Mr. Davis argues that the hearing officer improperly denied
his request for evidence. Mr. Davis argues that he asked to see surveillance
footage of the incident. The respondent argues that this request was properly
denied on the basis that no surveillance footage exists. The court agrees. While
prisoners have a right to present relevant and exculpatory evidence in their
defense, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974), the hearing officer couldn’t
review evidence that didn’t exist. Ground Two doesn’t state a basis for habeas
In Ground Three, Mr. Davis argues that the hearing officer had insufficient
evidence on which to find him guilty. In the disciplinary context, "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, 455-456 (1985). "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
[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only] have
the support of some evidence in the record. This is a lenient
This argument would also fail on its merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
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). A Conduct Report alone can be sufficient
evidence to support a finding of guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d at 786.
There is enough evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that Mr.
Davis violated IDOC A-102. IDOC A-102 prohibits offenders from “[c]ommitting
battery/assault upon another person with a weapon (including the throwing of
body fluids or waste on another person) or inflicting serious bodily injury.” Adult
.pdf. The Conduct Report charges Mr. Davis as follows:
[o]n the above date and approximate time, a Signal 7 was called by
Ofc. R. Colburn. Ofc. R. Colburn witnessed Offender Davis, Samuel
Jr. #962441 assaulting Offender Sarver, Jarome #219835 with a
homemade weapon that appeared to consist of a sock with an object
in it. Offender Sarver received serious bodily injury to his person and
was transported and admitted to an outside hospital for medical
treatment. During the course of my investigation it was determined
by reports and witness statements that Offender Davis did commit
this assault. Reference Case 13-WCC-0009 for further details. The
weapon was not recovered.
In reaching the decision that Mr. Davis was guilty, the hearing officer reviewed
staff reports, Mr. Davis’s statement, photographs, and “w/s” - which this court
understands as an abbreviation of “witness statements.”
The court has reviewed all of the evidence and determines that the hearing
officer’s finding of guilty was not unreasonable or arbitrary. The evidence
contained in the confidential internal affairs file is particularly compelling. Officer
Coburn saw Mr. Davis attack the victim with weapon and the victim suffered
significant bodily injury. Mr. Davis is correct that the weapon wasn’t discovered,
but there is evidence that a weapon was used. Moreover, an inmate can violate
IDOC A-102 by inflicting serious bodily injury upon another person. The evidence
demonstrates that the victim suffered significant bodily injury. The hearing officer
had sufficient evidence to find Mr. Davis guilty. Ground Three doesn’t identify a
basis for habeas corpus relief.
In Ground Four, Mr. Davis argues that his disciplinary hearing was
untimely. The procedural due process protections enumerated in Wolff include a
right to adequate notice. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 564. Mr. Davis doesn’t
argue that he did not receive adequate advance notice of the charges against him.
Rather, Mr. Davis contends that the 18-day delay between his notice of the
charges and the hearing violated his rights. Mr. Davis didn’t have a due process
right to a speedy disciplinary hearing. See e.g. U. S. ex rel. Houston v. Warden,
Stateville Corr. Ctr., 635 F.2d 656, 658 (7th Cir. 1980) (holding that prisoner’s due
process rights were not violated by two-month delay between offense and
disciplinary hearing). Moreover, Mr. Davis hasn’t claimed to have suffered any
prejudice from the delay. See Peters v. Anderson, 27 F. App’x 690, 692 (7th Cir.
2001) (unpublished) (“the delay was more likely to have enhanced than impeded
[prisoner’s] ability to marshal a defense”). Ground Four is not a basis for habeas
For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DENIED. The clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
ENTERED: June 12 , 2017.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
United States District Court
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?