BLACKMAN v. BUTTS

Filing 21

ENTRY denying 18 Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery and MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/24/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN,
vs.

Petitioner,

KEITH BUTTS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-0540-TWP-DKL

ENTRY
This is an action brought by an Indiana prisoner who seeks habeas corpus
relief with respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding.
The petitioner has filed a motion to conduct discovery and for an evidentiary
hearing [Dkt. 18]. Each aspect of this motion reveals a misunderstanding about the
scope of a federal court’s habeas review in these circumstances.
The petitioner seeks de novo review of the evidence which was or which he
contends should have been considered at the disciplinary hearing. That form of
review is neither authorized nor proper here. In fact, in reviewing the decision
“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.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). “[T]he
relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support
the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.
v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).

Accordingly, there is no basis on which to produce additional records and
materials, whether considered by the hearing officer or not. This demonstrates that
the petitioner has not established good cause to conduct discovery. See Bracy v.
Bramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997) (AA habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil
litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course@).
The motion to conduct discovery [Dkt. 18] is denied.
The request for an evidentiary hearing [Dkt. 18] is likewise denied because
such a proceeding is only necessary when a more extensive factual record must be
compiled to decide an issue. See Newell v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827, 838 (7th Cir. 2002).
That is not the case here.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
09/24/2012
Date: _____________________

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

Distribution:
Najee Sabree Q. Blackman
DOC #110245
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel