HOOVER v. KNIGHT

Filing 14

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - There was no arbitrary action in any aspect of the charge, disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Hoover to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Hoover's 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 7/19/2012. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JESS HOOVER,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STANLEY KNIGHT, Superintendent, )
)
Respondent.
)

2:12-CV-42-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Indiana prisoner Jess Hoover was disciplined in No. ISF 11-12-0205 after it
was determined that he had used an electronic device to capture a photo of himself
and other confirmed security threat group (gang) members to send via a cell phone
to an ex-offender. Contending that the proceeding was tainted by constitutional
error, Hoover seeks a writ of habeas corpus.
The writ Hoover seeks can be issued only if the court finds that he “is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). Because he has not made such a showing, his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus must be denied. The reason for this disposition is that the pleadings
and the expanded record show that (1) the procedural protections required by Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), were provided, (2) there was at least “some
evidence” to support the decision of the hearing officer as required by
Superintendent of Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d
649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (even “meager” proof is sufficient), and (3) the proceedings
were not otherwise tainted by prejudicial error.
"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 proceedings, or sanctions involved in
the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the
proceeding which entitles Hoover to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Hoover’s
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.
07/19/2012
Date: __________________

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

Distribution:
Janine Steck Huffman
Office of the Attorney General
[e-mail]
Jess Hoover
DOC #882020
New Castle Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P. O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362