HALL-BEY v. KNIGHT

Filing 15

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. (copy to petitioner via US Mail) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/19/2012.(SMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ERVIN R. HALL-BEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT, Miami
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-89-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Background
Ervin Hall-Bey is a state prisoner who was disciplined in a proceeding
identified as No. ISF 11-10-0160 for violating prison rules by aiding in or conspiring
to commit an assault/battery with a weapon or inflicting serious injury. The
evidence favorable to the decision of the hearing officer, see Henderson v. United
States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1993) (a federal habeas court
Awill overturn the . . . [conduct board=s] decision only if no reasonable adjudicator
could have found . . . [the petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the
evidence presented"), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 314 (1994), is the following: Just after
5:00 a.m. on October 5, 2011, inmate Maurice Dunlap was attacked by inmate John
Hudson at the Putnamville Correctional Facility. Dunlap had been identified as a
snitch by other inmates. This resulted in Hall-Bey putting out a contract for
someone to attack Dunlap. Dunlap suffered a suspected fractured arm in the course
of being attacked.
Contending that the proceeding described above is constitutionally infirm,
Hall-Bey seeks a writ of habeas corpus. His contentions are that the evidence was
insufficient, that he was denied evidence from two witnesses, and that the sanctions
imposed were excessive.
Discussion
The writ Hall-Bey seeks can be issued only if the court finds that he is Ain
custody in voiolation 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 Asome
evidence@ to support the decision of the conduct board as required by
Superintendent of Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), 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 proceeding, or sanctions involved in
the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the
proceeding which entitles Hall-Bey 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.

11/19/2012
Date: ____________________

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

Distribution:
Ervin R. Hall-Bey
No. 921011
Miami Correctional Facility
3038 West 850 South
Bunker Hill, IN 46914
[e-mail]