KING v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Filing 18

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/13/2011.(see entry for details) (copy to petitioner via us mail)(VS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

ANTONIO KING,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, PUTNAMVILLE
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11-cv-006-JMS-WGH

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 Antonio King 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. ISF 10-10-149, King was found guilty
of violating prison rules at the Putnamville Correctional Facility, an Indiana prison,
through his unauthorized possession or use of an electronic device. The evidence
favorable to the decision of the hearing officer is that on October 18, 2010, prison
authorities found three cell phones in a coat belonging to King. Contending that the
proceeding was constitutionally infirm, Gibson 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).

Using the protections recognized in Wolff and Hill as an analytical template, King
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) King 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.
King’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 King 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.

10/13/2011
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana