Filing 22

ENTRY Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Judgment (S.E.) cm. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/10/2010.(MAC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA JAMES HUSPON, Petitioner, v. BRETT MIZE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:09-cv-1103-SEB-DML Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus The writ James Huspon seeks in relation to the prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR 09-04-0071, in which it was determined that Huspon violated prison rules by committing battery upon another person, can be issued only if the court finds that he "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). Because he has not made such a showing, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied. The reason for this disposition is that the pleadings and the expanded record show that: (1) the procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), were provided; (2) there was at least "some evidence" to support the decision of the hearing officer as required by Superintendent of Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (even "meager" proof is sufficient); and (3) the proceedings were not otherwise tainted by prejudicial error. In particular, Huspon's claim that the conduct report was issued as a retaliatory measure does not warrant relief in this case because a hearing officer who follows established procedures, whose discretion is circumscribed by regulations, and who adheres to Wolff's procedural requirements, does not pose a hazard of arbitrariness violative of due process. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 571. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary action in any aspect of the charge, disciplinary proceeding, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Huspon to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Huspon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Date: 08/10/2010 SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?