CARTER v. BROWN

Filing 14

ENTRY - The Petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/9/2013. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
PETER CARTER,
Petitioner,
v.
DICK BROWN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-280-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the petition of Peter Carter (“Mr.
Carter”) for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action dismissed
with prejudice.
Background
The pleadings and the expanded record in this action establish the following:
1.

Mr. Carter is confined at an Indiana prison. He seeks a writ of habeas

corpus with respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. WVE 11-090086, wherein he was found guilty of having violated prison rules of conduct by
“attempting to engage in trafficking with anyone who is not an offender” residing in
the same facility.
2.

A conduct report was issued on September 15, 2011, reciting that

contraband had been discovered the previous day in mail addressed to Mr. Carter.
3.

After Mr. Carter was supplied with a copy of the written charge and

notified of his procedural rights, a hearing was conducted on September 30, 2011.
Mr. Carter was present at that hearing and made a statement concerning the

charge. At the conclusion of the hearing Mr. Carter was found guilty and sanctions
were imposed.
Discussion
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
2254(a) only if it finds the applicant Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.@ Id. When a prison disciplinary proceeding
results in a sanction which affects the expected duration of a prisoner=s
confinement, typically through the deprivation of earned good-time credits or the
demotion in credit earning class, the state may not deprive inmates of good-time
credits without following constitutionally adequate procedures to ensure that the
credits are not arbitrarily rescinded and habeas corpus is the proper remedy.
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004).
"Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and
the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In these circumstances, Mr. Carter was
entitled to the following process before being deprived of his liberty interests: (1)
advance (at least 24 hours before hearing) written notice of the claimed violation;
(2) the opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker; (3) the
opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence (when consistent
with institutional safety); and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder of the
evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Rasheed-Bey v.
Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992). In addition, there is a substantive

component to the issue, which requires that the decision of a conduct board be
supported by "some evidence." Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985).
Under Wolff and Hill, Mr. Carter received all the process to which he was
entitled. That is, the charge was clear, adequate notice was given, and the evidence
was sufficient. The sufficiency of the evidence was based on contraband being
included in mail addressed to Mr. Carter and inspected/discovered on September 14,
2012. In addition, (1) Mr. Carter was given the opportunity to appear before the
hearing officer and make a statement concerning the charge, (2) the hearing officer
issued a sufficient statement of his findings, and (3) the hearing officer issued a
written reason for his decision and for the sanctions which were imposed. A conduct
board that follows established procedures, whose discretion is circumscribed by
regulations, and which adheres to Wolff's procedural requirements, does not pose a
hazard of arbitrariness violative of due process. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 571. Mr. Carter’s
claim that he was denied an impartial decision maker is without merit.
"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 proceedings, or sanctions involved in
the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the
proceeding which entitles Mr. Carter to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Mr.
Carter’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.
01/09/2013
Date: ________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Peter Carter
No. 936926
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 1111
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
Carlisle, IN 47838
Electronically Registered Counsel