You're viewing Docket Item 2 from the case Seal v. Superintendent. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




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

DANIEL SEAL,





Petitioner,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

controlled substance.

2

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.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 31 , 2013

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Judge
United State District Court

3