467 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2006), 06-1509, Johnson v. Finnan

• Citation: 467 F.3d 693
• Party Name: Shawn JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alan FINNAN, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee.
• Case Date: November 02, 2006
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 693

467 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2006)

Shawn JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Alan FINNAN, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-1509.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

November 2, 2006

Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. No. 3:05-CV-0175-RLY-WGH—Richard L. Young, Judge.

Shawn Johnson (submitted), Carlisle, IN, pro se.

Page 694

Steve Carter, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before COFFEY, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Disciplinary panels in state prisons are not courts. White v. Indiana Parole Board, 266 F.3d 759, 765-66 (7th Cir. 2001). From this it follows that facts found (or assumed) by a prison disciplinary board are not entitled to the presumption of correctness that 28 U.S.C. §2254(e) affords to judicial findings. Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922, 925 (7th Cir. 2002). This means, in turn, that when a prisoner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus provides competent evidence (such as an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge of the events) contradicting an assertion by the prison disciplinary board on a material question of fact pertinent to an issue of constitutional law, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine where the truth lies. Piggie, 272 F.3d at 926; Pannell v. McBride, 306 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2002). We publish an opinion in this run-of-the-mine appeal because these established propositions frequently are overlooked in litigation arising from Indiana's prison system.

A guard at Shawn Johnson's prison charged him with preventing his cell from being locked at the curfew. According to the conduct report Johnson heard the warning for the daily lockup, realized that his cellmate was outside, and blocked the door until the cellmate could return. A disciplinary board credited this report and revoked 30 days of Johnson's good-time credits. Such a decision may be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. §2254 because it extends the prisoner's time in custody. Indiana does not offer judicial review of disciplinary decisions in prison, so the initial review comes in federal court—and, given the limits on §2254(e), without deference to the disciplinary board's findings.

The board stated (by checking a box on a form) that Johnson did not ask for delay; he...