HUDSON v. BUTTS

Filing 17

ENTRY - 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 Minor to the reli ef he seeks. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. ***SEE ENTRY***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/2/2013. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

CHRISTOPHER HUDSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
KEITH BUTTS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1413-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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. Because habeas petitioner Christopher Hudson fails
to show that this is the case with respect to the disciplinary proceeding challenged in
this case, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action
dismissed.
Discussion
In a disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR 12-02-0058, Hudson was found
guilty of violating a rule at an Indiana prison by physically resisting staff. The facts
favorable to the decision of the hearing officer are that during the morning of February
15, 2012, first responders went to Hudson’s cell because of a report that he was
unresponsive. They found Hudson lying face down with his hands under him. It was
determined that Hudson was responsive, but refused to show his hands when ordered
to do so and was beginning to be combative. A stun device was employed.
Contending that the proceeding was constitutionally infirm, Minor seeks a writ of
habeas corpus.
Indiana state prisoners have a liberty interest in their good-time credits and
therefore are entitled to due process before the state may revoke them. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974); Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir.
2004). The right to due process in this setting is important and is well-defined. Due
process requires the issuance of advance written notice of the charges, a limited
opportunity to present evidence to an impartial decision-maker, a written statement
articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it, and

Asome evidence in the record@ to support the finding of guilt. See Superintend., Mass.
Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564, 566,
570-71 (1974); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson,
224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
Under Wolff and Hill, Hudson received all the process to which he was entitled.
That is, the charge was clear, adequate notice was given, and the evidence was
sufficient. In addition, (1) Hudson 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 its findings, and (3) the hearing officer issued a written
reason for the decision and for the sanctions which were imposed.
Hudson’s claims that he was denied the protections afforded by Wolff 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 Minor to
the relief he seeks. Accordingly, his 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:

04/02/2013
_______________________________

Distribution:
Christopher Hudson
120501
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Electronically Registered Counsel

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana