case 3:13-cv-00367-RLM document 2 filed 07/31/13 page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-367 RM
OPINION AND ORDER
Daniel Seal, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging a prison
disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville Correctional Facility on December 5, 2012.
The Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Possessing a Controlled
Substance and deprived him of 48 days of earned credit time. Mr. Seal was charged after
a shakedown of his bed area discovered a green plant material hidden in the post at the
bottom of his bunk bed. He presents three grounds in his petition.
First, he argues that the “green plant material” was not tested by a laboratory.
“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full
panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Though prisoners have a right to submit relevant
exculpatory evidence, they don’t have the right to create evidence that doesn’t already
exist. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (“Prison officials must have the
necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits.”) and Freitas v. Auger,
837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988) (“Freitas was not entitled to a polygraph examination
case 3:13-cv-00367-RLM document 2 filed 07/31/13 page 2 of 3
. . ..”). See also Rhatigan v. Ward, 187 Fed. Appx. 889, 890-891 (10th Cir. 2006) and Arthur
v. Ayers, 43 Fed. Appx. 56, 57 (9th Cir. 2002) (inmates are not entitled to laboratory testing
of substances). This ground is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.
Second, Mr. Seal argues that he was assigned to the top bunk and that the material
was found in the leg of the bottom bunk. Third, he argues that the bedpost was also
accessible to the other three inmates housed in the room with him. In sum, he argues that
there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty because the untested green plant material
was found in a common area. In evaluating whether there is adequate evidence to support
the findings of a prison disciplinary hearing, “the relevant question is whether there is any
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary
board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-456 (1985). “The Federal Constitution does
not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the one reached by the
disciplinary board.” Id. at 457. Because Mr. Seal had direct access to the bed post, the DHB
had some evidence to find him guilty. See Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir.
1992) (discovery of weapon in area controlled by four inmates created twenty-five percent
chance of guilt supporting disciplinary action). Moreover, because the green plant material
was found hidden in a bed post, the DHB had some evidence for concluding that it was a
case 3:13-cv-00367-RLM document 2 filed 07/31/13 page 3 of 3
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to 2254
Habeas Corpus Rule 4.
ENTERED: July 31 , 2013
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
United State District Court