NEAL v. OLIVER

Filing 39

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/2/2013.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ROBERT DAVID NEAL,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN C. OLIVER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-187-WTL-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Robert David Neal is a federal prisoner who was disciplined in a proceeding identified as
No. 2212995 for violating prison rules by engaging in “Disruptive Conduct Most Like an Escape
Attempt.”
Contending that the proceeding is tainted by constitutional error, Neal seeks a writ of
habeas corpus. The court finds, however, that there was no error of that nature and that Neal’s
habeas petition must therefore be denied. This conclusion rests on the following facts and
circumstances:
1.

Federal inmates “have a liberty interest” in good time credits and “must be afforded

due process” before any good time credits are revoked. Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 845 (7th Cir.
2011).
2.

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).
3.

The foregoing requirements were met with respect to adjudication of the

misconduct charged in No. 2212995.
a.
The incident report was issued on March 29, 2011. Neal received a copy of the
incident report on April 9, 2011. The incident report was then re-written. Neal received a
copy of the re-written incident report on November 6, 2011.
b.
The hearing was conducted on November 9, 2011. Neal attended the hearing and
made a statement concerning the charge set forth in the re-written incident report. His
statement did not deny authorship of pertinent documents. His statement asserted error by
the Federal Bureau of Prisons in attempting to regulate the conduct.
c.
The hearing officer summarized the evidence and discussed the evidence he found
credible. The hearing officer set forth his findings in detail. The hearing officer also set
forth the reasons for the sanctions which were imposed.
4.

The foregoing review shows that the procedural requirements of Wolff were

satisfied and that the substantive requirement of “some evidence” was also satisfied.
5.

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 Neal to the relief he seeks.
6.

Accordingly,

Neal’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.

07/02/2013
Date: _________________

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Robert David Neal
#15151-180
Terre Haute USP
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
[e-mail]