JOHNSON v. BUTTS
ENTRY and ORDER Dismissing Action: 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 o f 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 Johnson to the relief he seeks. His arguments that he was denied the protections afforded by Wolff and Hill are refuted by the expanded record. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed (see Entry for additional information). Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/8/2014.(SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Case No. 1:14-cv-105-WTL-DML
Entry and Order Dismissing Action
“[I]n all habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the successful petitioner
must demonstrate that he ‘is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.’” Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a)). A viable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254(a) necessarily precludes a claim which is not
based on alleged noncompliance with federal law. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2010);
Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505, 511 (7th Cir. 2004)(“To say that a petitioner's claim is not
cognizable on habeas review is thus another way of saying that his claim ‘presents no federal
issue at all.’”)(quoting Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99, 101 (7th Cir. 1991)).
When the challenged custody results from a prison disciplinary proceeding, due process
requires that certain procedural safeguards be observed and that the decision be support by a
minimum quantity of evidence.
Due process requires that prisoners in disciplinary proceedings be given: “(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); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). 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).
In the present case, Dallas Johnson seeks a writ of habeas corpus pertaining to a
disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of violating prison rules through his
possession of a controlled substance. The controlled substance was suboxone, which was found
inside homemade candy bars inside Johnson’s cell on September 24, 2013. Using the protections
recognized in Wolff as an analytical template, Johnson 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) Johnson was given the opportunity to appear before the hearing officer
and make a statement concerning the charge, (2) the hearing officer and reviewing authority
issued a sufficient statement of their findings, and (3) the hearing officer issued a written reason
for their decisions and for the sanctions which were imposed. Johnson’s contentions otherwise
are either irrelevant to the charge and proceeding involved in this case or refuted by the
expanded record. He is not entitled to relief based on them.
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 Johnson to the relief he
seeks. His arguments that he was denied the protections afforded by Wolff and Hill are refuted by
the expanded record. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and
the action dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Electronically Registered Counsel
DALLAS JOHNSON 181619
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
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?