WALKER v. ZATECKY

Filing 17

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 "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Id. Because habeas petitioner Antonio Walker has failed 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 a ction dismissed. Walker'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. He has not argued otherwise. "The touchstone of du e 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 Walker 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. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/5/2017.(APD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANTONIO WALKER,
ISR16-11-0061,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
DUSHAN ZATECKY,
Respondent.

No. 1:17-cv-00568-JMS-MPB

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 “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” Id. Because habeas petitioner Antonio Walker has failed 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 16-11-0061, Walker was found guilty of
violating prison rules at the Pendleton Correctional Facility, an Indiana prison, by committing theft
of state property. The evidence favorable to the decision of the hearing officer is that on November
17, 2016, Walker was handed a conduct report to sign by Officer Napper. Walker was instructed
to acknowledge (sign) the conduct report, keep a copy and return the signed original to Officer
Napper. Instead of doing so, Walker retained the original of the conduct report and Officer Napper
left Walker’s cell without the conduct report after Walker had distracted her. Officer Napper

returned to Walker’s cell a short while later, but was unable to locate and recover the conduct
report.
A hearing on the charge was conducted on December 12, 2016. Walker was present at the
hearing and stated that he had signed the conduct report and returned it to Officer Napper. After
considering Walker’s statement and the other evidence, the hearing officer found Walker guilty of
the charged misconduct and sanctions were imposed. This action was filed after Walker’s
administrative appeal was rejected.
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
“some 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, Walker 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)
Walker 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. Walker complains of not receiving a timely response to his administrative appeals, but
nothing in Wolff or its progeny even require an administrative appeal or a response within a
specified time.
Walker’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. He has not argued
otherwise. “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 Walker 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: 7/5/2017

Distribution:
Andrea Elizabeth Rahman
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
ANTONIO WALKER
966776
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only