Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Mark Miller's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a prison disciplinary conviction for interfering with staff. The court held that the disciplinary proceeding satisfied due process because the conduct report and Miller's guilty plea provided some evidence supporting the finding of guilt.
Holdings
- The disciplinary finding satisfied due process because the Conduct Report constituted some evidence that Miller interfered with staff, and Miller's guilty plea independently supported the finding of guilt.
- Miller did not establish a due process violation based on his bottom-bunk order or alleged promise because the order did not negate the evidence that he interfered with staff, and his unsupported allegation of a promise was insufficient to show constitutional infirmity.
Questions Presented
- Whether the prison disciplinary finding of guilt was supported by some evidence sufficient to satisfy due process.
- Whether Miller's bottom-bunk medical order or an alleged promise to dismiss the charge rendered the disciplinary proceeding constitutionally infirm.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (10)
- Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Rhoiney v. Neal, 723 F. App'x 347, 348 (7th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985)(followed)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 563-67 (1974)(followed)
- Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Eichwedel v. Chandler, 696 F.3d 660, 675 (7th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- United States v. Loutos, 383 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Chapman v. Superintendent, Miami Corr. Facility, 2013 WL 228921, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 22, 2013)(followed)
- Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F. Supp. 1504, 1508 (N.D. Ind. 1985)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…