PIKE v. KNIGHT

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Disciplinary) - The petitioner's custodian is directed to answer the allegations of Ground Four (denied evidence), Ground Six (no evidence of value of property), Ground Seven (insufficient evidence to support the charge), and Ground Eight (not informed that he was being written up) of the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging insufficient evidence, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the petitioner should not be grant ed. This shall be done not later than June 22, 2015. The petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days after service of such answer or return to order to show cause on him in which to reply. **SEE ORDER** Copies sent pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/18/2015.(AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
RANDALL PIKE,
Petitioner,
v.
STANLEY KNIGHT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
) Case No. 2:15-cv-00134-WTL-WGH
)
)
)

Entry Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Order to Show Cause - Discipline Case
I.
The petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because he has
sufficient funds to pay the Five Dollar ($5.00) filing fee. He shall have through June 18, 2015, in
which to pay the filing fee to the clerk of the Court.
II.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts
provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” “[A] district
court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
The petitioner challenges a disciplinary conviction for Class B-215 theft that was issued
on December 19, 2014, in No. ISF14-12-0142 at Putnamville Correctional Facility. He brings
twelve claims, eight of which must be dismissed for the reasons explained in this Entry.

Ground One alleges that the conduct report was not submitted to the reporting officer’s
supervisor for review within 24 hours of the incident, and the conduct report was not signed by a
supervisor.
Ground Two alleges that the hearing was set 16 working days after the incident.
Ground Five alleges that the report of disciplinary hearing form was not approved and
signed by the Superintendent or his designee.
Ground Nine alleges that it took more than thirty (30) days for the petitioner to receive a
response to his appeal.
Ground Ten alleges that his appeal response was delivered in the regular institutional mail
and he was not required to sign for it.
Grounds One, Two, Five, Nine, and Ten allege violations of provisions of the Indiana
Department of Correction (“IDOC”) Manual of Policies and Procedures and, therefore, such
claims are without merit because habeas corpus relief cannot be based upon a violation of state
law. 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);
Keller v. Donahue, 2008 WL 822255, 271 Fed.Appx. 531, 532 (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2008) (in a
habeas action, an inmate “has no cognizable claim arising from the prison’s application of its
regulations.”). These claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Ground Three alleges that the notice of confiscation form was “slid in” on him at screening.
He said he signed it at screening not knowing what it was. He alleges that there was a “sign-here”
marking at the bottom of the form, which he contends was improper. The Court discerns no “sign-

here” marking on the form, nor any violation of due process based on this claim. Ground Three is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in this habeas action.
Grounds Eleven and Twelve allege that the petitioner’s rights under the Indiana
Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when
prison staff failed to follow proper state policies during the disciplinary proceedings. The due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the applicable and proper constitutional provision
in this action. If the petitioner wishes to assert a claim challenging any conditions of his
confinement, he must do so under the civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Glaus v. Anderson,
408 F.3d 382, 387-88 (7th Cir. 2005); Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991).
Because Grounds Eleven and Twelve are challenges based on inapplicable provisions of the state
and federal constitution, they are dismissed.
In sum, Grounds One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve are dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No final judgment shall issue as to the
claims dismissed in this Entry.
III.
The petitioner=s custodian is directed to answer the allegations of Ground Four (denied
evidence), Ground Six (no evidence of value of property), Ground Seven (insufficient
evidence to support the charge), and Ground Eight (not informed that he was being written
up) of the petitioner=s petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging insufficient evidence, and in
doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. This shall
be done not later than June 22, 2015. The petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days after
service of such answer or return to order to show cause on him in which to reply.

A copy of this Entry and Order to Show Cause shall be sent to the Indiana Attorney General
through a Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF") generated by the court's CM/ECF case management
system. The Indiana Attorney General has previously been provided with a copy of the habeas
petition itself.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/18/15
Distribution:
Randall Pike
#950535
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. 40
Greencastle, IN 46135-9275
[e-mail]

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