COOPER v. KNIGHT

Filing 10

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Contending that the proceeding is tainted by constitutional error, Cooper seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The court finds that there was no error of that nature and that Cooper's habeas petition must therefore be denied. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/21/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LOWELL COOPER,
Petitioner,

vs.
STANLEY KNIGHT,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00274-WTL-DKL

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Lowell Cooper seeks a writ of habeas corpus with respect to a prison
disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF 12-04-0180. In that proceeding, he was
found guilty of violating prison rules by being in possession of a controlled
substance. The determination of this misconduct was based on evidence which
showed that in the mid-afternoon of April 17, 2012, he was in possession of an
orange strip containing suboxine. Suboxine is a controlled substance.
Contending that the proceeding is tainted by constitutional error, Cooper
seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The court finds, however, that there was no error of
that nature and that Cooper’s habeas petition must therefore be denied. This
conclusion rests on the following facts and circumstances:
1.
Cooper is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if he is "in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
' 2254(a). Under Indiana law, state prison inmates have a protected liberty interest
in earned good-time credits and in credit-earning class, IND. CODE '' 35-50-6-4,
35-50-6-5 (2000), and the state may not deprive inmates of good-time credits
without following constitutionally adequate procedures to insure that the credits
are not arbitrarily rescinded. Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 719 (7th Cir. 1996)
(citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974)). In these circumstances,
Cooper was entitled to the following process before being deprived of his liberty
interests: (1) advance (at least 24 hours before hearing) written notice of the

claimed violation; (2) the opportunity to be heard before an impartial decisionmaker; (3) the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence
(when consistent with institutional safety); and (4) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. RasheedBey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992). In addition, there is a
substantive component to the issue, which requires that the decision of a conduct
board be supported by "some evidence." Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985).
2.
Under Wolff and Hill, Cooper 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) Cooper was given the opportunity to appear before
the conduct board and make a statement concerning the charge, (2) the conduct
board issued a sufficient statement of its findings, and (3) the conduct board issued
a written reason for its decision and for the sanctions imposed. Specifically, the
strip containing the suspected controlled substance tested positive for suboxine on
April 20, 2012. As to the severity of the sanction imposed, this is not ordinarily
cognizable in an action such as this, Koo v. McBride, 124 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir.
1997), and this case is no exception.
3.
"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 Cooper to the relief he seeks. His arguments that he was
denied the protections afforded by Wolff and Hill are refuted by the expanded
record. 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.

12/21/2012
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Lowell Cooper
No. 123611
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West US Hwy. 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Electronically Registered Counsel

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