United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
HUBERT D. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Robert
L. Miller, Jr. Judge
Hubert
D. Williams, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas
corpus petition challenging the disciplinary decision (WCC
18-8-493) at the Westville Correctional Facility in which a
disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of possession
of a controlled substance in violation of Indiana Department
of Correction Offense B-202. He was sanctioned with a
demotion in credit class. Under Section 2254 Habeas Corpus
Rule 4, the court must dismiss the petition “[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.”
Mr.
Williams argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because
the hearing officer lacked sufficient evidence to find him
guilty. He says the leafy brown substance found in his cell
wasn't tested to confirm that it was a controlled
substance.
[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only]
have the support of some evidence in the record. This is a
lenient standard, requiring no more than a modicum of
evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as the
record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the
disciplinary board were without support or otherwise
arbitrary. Although some evidence is not much, it still must
point to the accused's guilt. It is not our province to
assess the comparative weight of the evidence underlying the
disciplinary board's decision.
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
The administrative record includes a conduct report that
indicated that a partially opened tea bag with a brown
substance was found hanging from the window behind the
headboard on Mr. Williams's bed. This evidence isn't
conclusive, but that the tea bag was opened suggests that its
contents were altered in some fashion, and the location in
which it was found suggests that Mr. Williams meant to
conceal it. That points to Mr. Williams's guilt and
constitutes some evidence. Further, while the right to
procedural due process affords Mr. Williams specific rights
for disciplinary proceedings, the right to scientific
verification isn't included among them. See
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974);
White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 768 (7th
Cir. 2001) (warning against adding additional due process
protections beyond those provided by Wolff).
Therefore, the claim that the hearing officer lacked
sufficient evidence to find him guilty is not a basis for
habeas relief.
Mr.
Williams also argues that the hearing officer wasn't an
impartial decisionmaker. He says the hearing officer's
bias was demonstrated by his refusal to continue the
disciplinary hearing and to test the leafy brown substance.
In the prison disciplinary context, adjudicators are
“entitled to a presumption of honesty and integrity,
” and “the constitutional standard for improper
bias is high.” Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660,
666 (7th Cir. 2003). Due process prohibits a prison official
who was personally and substantially involved in the
underlying incident from acting as a decisionmaker in the
case. Id. Due process isn't violated just
because the hearing officer knew the inmate, presided over a
prior disciplinary case, or had some limited involvement in
the event underlying the charge. Id. While the
hearing officer might have refused the requests and found Mr.
Williams guilty, there is no indication that he was involved
with the underlying charge, that he had a personal interest
in the result of the hearing, or that he based his decision
on anything other than the administrative record. As a
result, the claim that the hearing officer was not an
impartial decisionmaker is not a basis for habeas relief.
Because
it is clear from the petition and attached exhibits that Mr.
Williams isn't entitled to habeas relief, the court
denies the petition. If Mr. Williams wants to appeal this
decision, he doesn't need a certificate of appealability
because he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding.
See Evans v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th
Cir. 2009). However, he may not proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal because the court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in
good faith.
For
these reasons, the court:
(1)
DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus
Rule 4;
(2)
DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and to close this case;
and
(3)
DENIES Hubert D. Williams leave to proceed in forma ...