Gibson v. Warden

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/30/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BOBBY GIBSON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-814 RLM-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Bobby Gibson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his disciplinary hearing (CIC 17-01-428) at the Correctional Industrial
Facility on February 2, 2017, where a disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty
of refusing to submit a urine sample for a drug test in violation of Indiana
Department of Correction policy B-203. He lost 30 days earned credit time. In his
petition, Mr. Gibson presents one ground. He argues that prison officials failed to
follow the Department of Correction’s Offender Urinalysis Program Manual of
Policies and Procedures (Policy Number 01-02-0107) when they refused to give
him a second urine test when his initial urine sample proved to be inadequate.
Habeas corpus relief can only be granted for “violation[s] of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Failure to follow policy
isn’t 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) (inmate’s claim that prison did
not follow internal policies had “no bearing on his right to due process”).
An inmate violates B-203 when he “[r]efus[es] to submit to any testing or
sampling required by statute (e.g., DNA sampling) or refus[es] to submit to a test
to determine the presence of alcohol or a controlled substance as ordered by staff,
including failure to provide an adequate . . . specimen for testing purposes.” Adult
Disciplinary

Process,

Appendix

I.

http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-

101_APPENDIX_I-OFFENSES_6-1-2015(1).pdf. Mr. Gibson says he didn’t refuse
to submit to a urine test. He says he asked for a new specimen cup to provide a
second urine sample when prison officials determined the temperature of his
initial sample did not read “high enough.” Id. A violation of B-203 doesn’t require
an intentional refusal to provided a sample. “[F]ailure to provide an adequate . .
. specimen for testing purposes” is all that is required. Mr. Gibson doesn’t dispute
that his initial specimen was inadequate for testing. “[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) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). There is no indication that the finding of guilt was unsupported
or arbitrary.

2

For these reasons, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254
Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED on January 30, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3