Burke v. Superintendent
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES 1 the petition. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/24/2016. cc: Burke (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
LEROY BURKE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT
Respondent.
CAUSE NO. 4:15-CV-021 RL
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition by State Prisoner Challenging a
Prison Disciplinary Proceeding, filed by Leroy Burke, a pro se
prisoner, on March 9, 2015 (DE #1).
For the reasons set forth
below, the court DENIES the petition (DE #1).
The Clerk is
DIRECTED to close this case.
BACKGROUND
Here, Burke challenges a disciplinary determination made by a
hearing officer at the Miami Correctional Facility (“Miami”) under
case number MCF 14-11-0485, where he was found guilty of possession
of a controlled substance.
days earned credit time.
Burke was sanctioned with a loss of 60
The conduct report states:
On October 3rd, 2014, Internal Affairs received
information that Offender Leroy Burke Jr., 103288 housed
in LH-307, was in possession of methamphetamine. I
contacted Capt. Dale Traux and asked that this offender
and the offender’s cell be shook down. At approximately
3:23pm Officer Kingery and Sgt. Shidler entered the
Offender’s cell.
Offender Burke did not want to
cooperate and became combative. The officer and sergeant
had to restrain the offender while wrestling him to the
ground. While they were trying to restrain Burke in the
day-room, you can see Burke throwing a white object
inside his cell. Sgt. Shidler retrieved the package and
brought it to Internal Affairs. I unwrapped the package
and found a white substance. I conducted a field test on
the substance and it tested positive for methamphetamine
[Exhibit C]. A note also found on this offender states
there was 2.5 grams of Ice in the package. The package
was weighed and it was 2.5 grams.
(DE #8-1.)
On November 10, 2014, Burke was notified of the charge.
(DE
#8-4.) The screening report reflects that he pled guilty, declined
a lay advocate, and did not request and witnesses or physical
evidence.
On
November
10,
disciplinary hearing.
2014,
a
(DE #8-5.)
hearing
officer
conducted
a
At the hearing, Burke commented
that, “I plea guilty.” (Id.) The hearing officer accepted his plea
and found Burke guilty of the charge of possession of a controlled
substance. (Id.) Relying on staff reports and Burke’s statement,
the hearing officer imposed a penalty of 60 days lost earned time
credits and demoted him from credit class 1 to credit class 2.
(Id.) Burke appealed to the facility head and the final reviewing
authority, but his appeals were denied.
(DE ##8-6, 8-7, 8-8.)
DISCUSSION
When
prisoners
lose
earned
time
credits
in
a prison
disciplinary hearing, they are entitled to certain protections
2
under the Due Process Clause: (1) advance written notice of the
charges; (2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial
decision maker; (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present
documentary evidence in defense when consistent with institutional
safety and correctional goals; and (4) a written statement by a
fact
finder
of
evidence
relied
on
and
the
reasons
for
the
disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974).
To satisfy due process, there must also be “some evidence” to
support the hearing officer’s decision.
Superintendent, Mass.
Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Here, Burke raises four claims in his petition: (1) he was
denied an impartial hearing officer; (2)the charges against him are
false; (3) he was entitled to a written explanation of the hearing
officer’s determination; and (4) his Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination was violated.
First, Burke complains that he was denied an impartial hearing
officer.
In the prison disciplinary context, adjudicators are
“entitled to a presumption of honesty and integrity,” and “the
constitutional standard for improper bias is high.”
F.3d at 666.
Piggie, 342
Due process prohibits a prison official who was
personally and substantially involved in the underlying incident
from acting as a decision-maker in the case.
Id.
However, due
process is not violated simply because the hearing officer knew the
inmate, presided over a prior disciplinary case, or had some
3
limited
involvement
in
the
event
underlying
the
charge.
Id.
Here, Burke does not clearly explain why he believes the
hearing officer was biased, but there is no indication that he was
involved in any way in the events underlying the charge.
Thus,
there is no basis for habeas relief.
Next, Burke claims that his rights were violated because the
charge
was
initiated
by
staff
for
retaliatory
reasons.
“[P]risoners are entitled to be free from arbitrary actions of
prison officials.”
McPherson, 188 F.3d at 787.
Here, however,
Burke cites to no evidence and provides no argument from which
retaliation
may
be
inferred.
Nevertheless,
“even
assuming
fraudulent conduct on the part of prison officials, the protection
from such arbitrary action is found in the procedures mandated by
due process.”
Id.
In other words, the protections to which Burke
was entitled are the protections afforded by Wolff, and his claim
that the charge was false does not itself entitle him to federal
habeas relief. Liberally construed, his claim may be that the
evidence was insufficient to find him guilty.
In reviewing a
disciplinary determination for sufficiency of the 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.”
188 F.3d at 786.
McPherson,
“[T]he relevant question is whether there is any
4
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by
the disciplinary board.”
added).
Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56 (emphasis
The Court will overturn a guilty finding only if “no
reasonable adjudicator could have found [the prisoner] guilty of
the offense on the basis of the evidence presented.”
Henderson v.
United States Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1994).
Here, the record shows that Burke had in his possession of a
substance that field tested for methamphetamine.
Moreover, Burke
pled guilty to the offense. This constitutes some evidence that he
was guilty of unauthorized possession of a controlled substance.
See Hill, 472 U.S. at 457; see also Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d
978, 988 (7th Cir. 2002); McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786.
Third,
Burke
claims
that
the
hearing
officer’s
written
decision was inadequate because it does not explain why he arrived
at his decision.
The written statement requirement is “not
onerous,” and to satisfy due process “[t]he statement need only
illuminate
the
evidentiary
basis
and
reasoning
behind
the
decision.”
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007).
Here, the hearing officer’s report indicated that accepted Burke’s
guilty plea.
(DE #8-5.)
The hearing officer’s stated reason for
his decision was based on the guilty plea.
(Id.)
His statement is
not lengthy, but it illuminated the basis for his decision.
The
written
the
statement
the
hearing
officer
5
provided
satisfied
minimal requirements of due process, and therefore this claim is
denied.
Fourth, Burke claims he was denied his Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination because he was not given his Miranda
rights.
He alleges that he was not given Miranda warnings, but
such advisements are not required in prison disciplinary cases.
See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 315 (1976).
Not only is there sufficient evidence to find Burke guilty of
the charged offense, but there has been no showing that he was
deprived any due process along the way. Based on the record, there
is sufficient evidence to find Burke guilty of possession of a
controlled substance, and he has not made a showing that his due
process rights have been violated.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition
(DE #1).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
DATED: October 24, 2016
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
6
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?