MCANALLEY v. KNIGHT

Filing 10

Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition of Robert McAnalley for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in ISF 14-07-0341 in which he was found guilty of conspiracy to engage in an unauthorized fi nancial transaction. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr. McAnalley's habeas petition 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 Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/30/2015.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ROBERT McANALLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
STANLEY KNIGHT Superintendent,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) No. 2:14-cv-00337-JMS-MJD
)
)
)
)

Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Robert McAnalley for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison
disciplinary proceeding in ISF 14-07-0341 in which he was found guilty of conspiracy to engage
in an unauthorized financial transaction. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr. McAnalley’s
habeas petition must be denied.
I. Overview
Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of credit time, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d
637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 64445 (7th Cir. 2001), without due process. The due process requirement is satisfied with 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 “some evidence in the record” to support the finding of guilt.
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 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).

II. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On July 16, 2014, Correctional Officer Maslin filed a Report of Conduct that charged Mr.
McAnalley with a class B offense conspiracy to engage in an unauthorized financial transaction.
The Report of Conduct states:
On 7/16/14 at 09:15 am phone calls were monitored in tower 1 by C/O Maslin #399
that clearly indicate offender Robert McAnalley #150042 was conspiring to engage
in an unauthorized financial transaction. On 7/13/14 at 18:59 at 01:38 into the call
offender Robert McAnalley #150042 states “that was $1.25? Yes, “ok same placeto TT from Robby.”
Mr. McAnalley was notified of the class B charge when he was served with the Report of
Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). He was notified of his rights,
pled not guilty, and indicated his desire to have a lay advocate. He noted that he did not want to
call any witnesses but he requested the recording of the phone call as evidence.
The hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on July 28, 2014, finding Mr.
McAnalley guilty of the class B offense conspiracy to engage in an unauthorized financial
transaction. The recommended sanctions imposed included a written reprimand, a 30-day phone
restriction, and the deprivation of 90 days of earned credit time. The hearing officer imposed the
sanctions because of the seriousness of the offense and the degree to which the violation disrupted
or endangered the security of the facility.
Mr. McAnalley appealed to the Facility Head on July 29, 2014. He raised two issues
relating to the date of the incident and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty finding.
The Facility Head denied the appeal on August 8, 2014. Mr. McAnalley appealed to the Final
Reviewing Authority, who denied his appeal on August 29, 2014. He filed his habeas petition on
October 30, 2014.

III. Analysis
Mr. McAnalley’s claims for habeas relief are that his due process rights were violated
when: 1) the sanctions were not approved by a higher authority; 2) there was a lack of evidence;
and 3) there was a discrepancy as to the date of the incident.
Mr. McAnalley did not raise on appeal the claim concerning the approval of the sanctions
by a higher authority. This claim, therefore, has been waived and procedurally defaulted. See
Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993, 995 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that the principles of exhaustion of
available state remedies apply to prison disciplinary proceedings). Moreover, this is an issue based
on Indiana Department of Correction rules and regulations, which is not subject to federal habeas
review. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 at n.2 (1991) (“state-law violations provide no basis
for federal habeas review.”); Hester v. McBride, 966 F. Supp. 765, 774-75 (N.D. Ind. 1997)
(violations of the Indiana Adult Disciplinary Policy Procedures do not state a claim for federal
habeas relief). This claim fails.
Mr. McAnalley’s second and third claims relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. He first
argues that the evidence does not support an unauthorized financial transaction. The hearing officer
reviewed the phone call as “$1.25 goes to place to TT from Robby. She asked about Jeremy, he
says doesn’t matter. If he does won’t have enough to give to TT what he is suppose[d] to get.”
Dkt. 8-4. Mr. McAnalley was charged with Offense 220 which is defined as “[e]ngaging in or
possessing materials used for unauthorized financial transactions. This includes, but is not limited
to, the use or possession of identifying information of credit cards, debit cards, or any other card
used to complete a financial transaction.” Conspiracy is defined as “[a]ttempting to commit any
Class B offense; aiding, commanding, inducing, counseling, procuring or conspiring with another
person to commit any Class B offense.”

The “some evidence” evidentiary standard in this type of case is much more lenient than
“beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “by a preponderance.” See Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978,
981 (7th Cir. 2002) (hearing officer in prison disciplinary case “need not show culpability beyond
a reasonable doubt or credit exculpatory evidence.”). The “some evidence” standard requires “only
that the decision not be arbitrary or without support in the record.” McPherson v. McBride, 188
F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). The recorded directives by Mr. McAnalley to another person support
a finding that Mr. McAnalley was engaging in an unauthorized financial transaction. There was
sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding of guilty.
Mr. McAnalley also argues that his due process rights were violated when the conduct
report and the hearing officer’s report stated that the incident occurred on July 16, 2014, but the
incident described on the conduct report occurred on July 13, 2014. This alleged discrepancy is of
no import. On the conduct report, it is clear that the officer had monitored phone calls on July 16
but the date of the call itself was July 13, 2014. Mr. McAnalley was given a copy of the conduct
report and was able to read the body of the report in addition to the headings on the report. Mr.
McAnalley has not demonstrated any prejudice from the mention of both dates on the conduct
report.
Mr. McAnalley was given notice and had an opportunity to defend the charge. The hearing
officer provided a written statement of the reasons for the finding of guilt and described the
evidence that was considered. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision.
Under these circumstances, there were no violations of Mr. McAnalley’s due process rights.

IV. Conclusion
“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 proceedings. Accordingly, Mr. McAnalley’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.

Date: December 30, 2015

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

Distribution:
Robert McAnalley, # 150042
Correctional Industrial Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 W. Reformatory Rd.
Pendleton, IN 46064
Electronically registered counsel