Johnson v. Warden
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the amended habeas corpus petition 5 ; DIRECTING the Clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and DENYING Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 5/20/2019. (bas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-253-PPS-MGG
WARDEN,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Johnson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended habeas corpus
petition challenging the disciplinary decision (MCF 17-11-48) at the Miami Correctional
Facility in which a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him guilty of possessing a
cellphone in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Offense A-121. Following a
disciplinary hearing, Johnson was sanctioned with a demotion in credit class and a
suspended loss of earned credit time.
Johnson argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because the hearing officer
lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty of possessing a telephone. He further
argues that the decisionmakers at all three levels of disciplinary proceedings failed to
consider exculpatory evidence.
[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 and citations
omitted).
At the time of the hearing, the administrative record included a conduct report
stating that two correctional officers found a cellphone in the toilet of Johnson’s cell,
photographs of the cellphone, and a written statement from his cellmate that “[he] woke
up and the c/o was in the room and found a cell phone.” ECF 8-2 at 2. It also included
Johnson’s statement that the cellphone belonged to his cellmate who had already pled
guilty to possessing it. The correctional officer’s statement that they found the cellphone
in a common area in Johnson’s cell suggests that he possessed the cellphone and thus
constitutes some evidence to support the finding of guilt. Therefore, the claim that the
hearing officer lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty is not a basis for habeas
relief.
Johnson argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because he did not have an
opportunity to present evidence. He alleges that the screening officer told him that the
charge would be dismissed if his cellmate pled guilty and that he declined to prepare a
more robust defense due to this statement. Though Johnson may have relied on the
screening officer’s statement, the statement was not tantamount to a denial of the
opportunity to present evidence -- Johnson was notified of the charge more than one
month before the hearing, he was advised that the hearing would go forward even after
his cellmate’s guilty plea on at least two separate occasions, and his cellmate’s
2
statement, the only evidence he requested at screening, was presented at the hearing.
ECF 8-2; ECF 15-1. Therefore, Johnson’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to
present evidence is not a basis for habeas relief.
Finally, Johnson argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because correctional
staff did not investigate the charges and because they did not allow him to obtain a
witness statement from a caseworker for purposes of his administrative appeal. An
investigation of the charges and the opportunity to present evidence on appeal are not
listed among the requirements for procedural due process for prison disciplinary
proceedings enumerated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and the Supreme
Court of the United States has indicated that this list of requirements is exhaustive.
White v. Indiana Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 768 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano,
425 U.S. 308 (1976)). Therefore, these claims are not a basis for habeas relief.
Because Johnson has not asserted a valid claim for habeas relief, the habeas
petition is denied. If Johnson wants to appeal this decision, he does not need a
certificate of appealability because he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding.
See Evans v. Circuit Court of Cook Cnty., Ill., 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009). However, he
may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the court finds pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the amended habeas corpus petition (ECF 5);
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and
(3) DENIES Michael Johnson leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
3
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 20, 2019.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?