Wright v. Superintendent

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 2/28/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DaMARCUS WRIGHT,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-696-JD-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
DaMarcus Wright, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his disciplinary hearing (MCF 17-06-146) at the Miami Correctional Facility
on June 25, 2017, where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of
Possession or Use of a Controlled Substance in violation of Indiana Department of
Correction policy B-202. ECF 1 at 1, ECF 3 at 6. As a result, he lost 30 days earned
credit time and was demoted from Credit Class B to Credit Class C. Id.
In his petition, Wright presents one ground which he argues entitles him to
habeas corpus relief. Here, Wright asserts that his due process rights were violated
because prison officials did not test the cigarette he was found smoking for controlled
substances. ECF 1 at 2. Specifically, Wright states he “was seen smoking a cigarett[e]
and written up for the possession of a controlled substance” but “[t]here was no
confiscation of any drug, tobacco, etc.” and his request to “have the controlled
substance tested . . . was denied.” Id.

In the context 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, 455-56 (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 omitted).
[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).
Here, the Conduct Report charged Wright as follows:
On 6-5-17 at approximately 6:07 PM, I, Sergeant E. Parkin, walked onto the
100/200 range dayroom of EHU. Looking towards the microwave by the
laundry room I observed Offender Wright, Damarcus #215474 E212
standing with his back against the laundry room door holding an object
up to his mouth. I observed the object glow bright red at the tip. As I
approached Offender Wright, he appeared to pass the object off to another
item. I requested Offender Wright give me his ID card as I believed him
to be smoking a controlled substance in the dayroom. Offender Wright
did not have his ID card on him and I escorted him to E212 to retrieve his
ID card. At approximately 9:30 PM Offender Wright contacted me in the
2

pod requesting that I not write him up. I explained that as I had observed
the red hot end of a stick commonly utilized by offenders to smoke
controlled substances, that he would be receiving a B202 for
possession/use of a controlled substance.
ECF 3 at 2. The IDOC defines offense B-202 as “[p]ossession or use of any
unauthorized substance controlled pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana or the
United States Code or possession of drug paraphernalia.” Adult Disciplinary Process,
Appendix I. http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101_APPENDIX_I-OFFENSES_6-12015(1).pdf. The IDOC’s definition of ‘possession’ includes any contraband on the
prisoner’s person, without reference to ownership: “offenders are presumed to be
responsible for any property, prohibited property or contraband that is located on their
person, within their cell or within areas of their housing, work, educational or
vocational assignment that are under their control.” Disciplinary Code for Adult
Offenders. http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101_The_Disciplinary_Code_for_
Adult_Offenders___6-1-2015.pdf.
The prison’s refusal to test Wright’s cigarette for controlled substances did not
violate his due process rights. “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). While
prisoners have a right to submit relevant exculpatory evidence, they do not have the
right to create evidence which does not already exist because “[p]rison officials must
have the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits.” Id. See also

3

Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988) (“Freitas was not entitled to a
polygraph examination . . ..”); Rhatigan v. Ward, 187 Fed. Appx. 889, 890-891 (10th Cir.
2006); and Arthur v. Ayers, 43 Fed. Appx. 56, 57 (9th Cir. 2002) (inmates were not
entitled to laboratory testing of substances). Thus, the fact that the cigarette was not
tested for controlled substances is not a basis for habeas relief.
In sum, the DHO had sufficient evidence to find Wright guilty of violating
offense B-202 and the decision to do so was not arbitrary. Though there may have been
some other reason he was seen holding a glowing red hot stick, “[t]he Federal
Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the
one reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 457.
For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas
Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED on February 28, 2018.

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4