KEIGLEY v. STATE OF INDIANA

Filing 12

Entry and Order Dismissing Action - A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of demonstrating that he "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(a). 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.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/13/2014.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JASON KEIGLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

2:13-cv-305-JMS-MJD

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
A.
A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of demonstrating that
he "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28
U.S.C. ' 2254(a). A viable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254(a) necessarily precludes a claim
which is not based on alleged noncompliance with federal law. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S. Ct.
13, 16 (2010); Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505, 511 (7th Cir. 2004)(“To say that a petitioner's
claim is not cognizable on habeas review is thus another way of saying that his claim ‘presents
no federal issue at all.’”)(quoting Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99, 101 (7th Cir. 1991)).
When the challenged custody results from a prison disciplinary proceeding, due process
requires that certain procedural safeguards be observed and that the decision be support by a
minimum quantity of evidence.
Due process requires that prisoners in disciplinary proceedings be given: “(1)
advance (at least 24 hours before hearing) written notice of the claimed violation;
(2) the opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker; (3) the

opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence (when consistent
with institutional safety); and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder of the
evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Rasheed-Bey v.
Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). 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).
B.
In the present case, Keigley seeks a writ of habeas corpus pertaining to a disciplinary
proceeding identified as No. WVS-13-06-00201, wherein he was found guilty of threatening.
The factual basis of the discipline is that during the evening of June 10, 2013, Keigley was
performing his duties as a kitchen worker and stated to another inmate that he was about to “stab
a m—f— in the neck.” This was stated in front of an Aramark worker Brandon Little, who then
wrote a conduct report describing the setting and the statement.
Keigley claims that: 1) he was denied his right to call witnesses; 2) the hearing officer in
his case “falsely accused” him, demonstrating that she was not impartial; 3) he was denied his
right to request physical evidence; and 4) a non-employee of the prison wrote the conduct report.
Each of these is a procedural claim, not implicating to the sufficiency of the evidence.
His claims, however, are refuted by the expanded record. When Keigley was notified of the
charge, he waived his right to request witnesses and to request physical evidence. The hearing
officer was the adjudicator, not the charging authority. The fact that the conduct report was
written by Mr. Little rather than a prison employee is constitutionally insignificant.

C.
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 Keigley to the relief he
seeks. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action
dismissed.
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
02/13/2014
Date: __________________

Distribution:

Electronically Registered Counsel
JASON KEIGLEY
174015
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant -- Court Only

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