BAKER v. FINNAN

Filing 18

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Baker's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/3/2012.(JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

RODNEY E. BAKER,
v.

Petitioner,

SUPERINTENDENT, New Castle
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11-cv-735-JMS-DML

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Rodney Baker is a state prisoner who was disciplined in a proceeding
identified as No. IYC 09-04-0246 for violating prison rules by committing battery.
The evidence favorable to the decision of the conduct board, see Henderson v. United
States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1993) (a federal habeas court
Awill overturn the . . . [conduct board=s] decision only if no reasonable adjudicator
could have found . . . [the petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence
presented"), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 314 (1994), is that during the morning of April 27,
2009, Baker was swinging a lock on a belt at fellow inmate Tracey Johnson. Baker
then placed Johnson in a front head lock.
Contending that the proceeding was constitutionally infirm, Baker now seeks
a writ of habeas corpus. The writ Baker seeks can be issued only if the court finds
that he Ais 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
Asome evidence@ to support the decision of the conduct board as required by
Superintendent of Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and (3) the proceedings were
not otherwise tainted by prejudicial error.
Baker=s arguments that he was denied the protections afforded by Wolff and
Hill are either refuted by the expanded record or based on assertions which do not
entitle him to relief. "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 Baker to the relief he seeks. Accordingly,
Baker=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.

01/03/2012
Date: _________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana