Northern v. Hanks
| Decision Date | 21 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-2112.,02-2112. |
| Citation | 326 F.3d 909 |
| Parties | Jeffery Wayne NORTHERN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig A. HANKS, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Jeffery W. Northern Brachville Training Center, Tell City, IN, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Frances Barrow, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before COFFEY, RIPPLE, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Indiana inmate Jeffery Northern filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that prison officials violated his due process rights when they failed properly to notify him of a disciplinary charge. The district court dismissed the petition, and we affirm.1
Prison officials at Indiana Correctional Industrial Facility investigated allegations that Northern and two other inmates were smuggling tobacco into the facility with the help of a staff member. After an extensive investigation, officials charged Northern with an Adult Disciplinary Procedures Code 100-A conduct violation for violating Indiana Code § 35-41-5-2(a) (conspiracy) and § 35-44-1-1(a)(2) (bribery). Four days before his disciplinary hearing, Northern received a copy of the conduct and investigation reports detailing the facts supporting the charge. After Northern admitted to smuggling tobacco into the prison, the Conduct Adjustment Board ("CAB") found him guilty of a Code 100-A violation and demoted him to credit-earning class III. Northern appealed, and although the reviewing authority affirmed the credit demotion, it modified the charge, stating that it believed the facts as set forth in the investigation report more appropriately supported a finding that Northern violated Code 111/113-A for attempted trafficking.
Northern filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court later denied. In his petition, Northern alleged that he received 24-hour notice of the original charge, but not of the modified charge, and therefore, because he was convicted of an offense different from the offense identified in the original notice, his due process rights were violated. The district court found that Northern had received advance notice of the original charge, and that the reviewing authority's modification of the charge on appeal was "of no consequence" because the evidence supported either charge. Thus, the court concluded that Northern's due process rights were not violated.
On appeal Northern renews his argument that the reviewing authority's modification of the charge violated due process because it did not give him advance notice, and thus he could not mount an appropriate defense. He argues that if he had originally been charged with attempted trafficking, his "defensive posture [at the CAB hearing] would have been different."
Indiana inmates have a protected liberty interest in their credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 645 (7th Cir.2001), and therefore are entitled to receive advance written notice of the charges against them, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The notice should inform the inmate of the rule allegedly violated and summarize the facts underlying the charge. Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 534 (7th Cir.1995). The notice requirement permits the accused to gather the relevant facts and prepare a defense. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. 2963; Whitford, 63 F.3d at 534.
Here, Northern received advance written notice informing him of the facts underlying the charge. These facts were sufficient to apprise Northern that he could be subject to a trafficking charge. As set forth in the investigation report, Northern had been implicated in a scheme by which tobacco was bought and sold among inmates. According to the report, an unidentified prison staff member would repeatedly bring tobacco into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. Anderson
...rights guaranteed by Wolff v. McDonnell. But even if Heck v. Humphrey does not bar this claim, the recent decision in Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2003), establishes that it states no claim upon which relief can be granted in Mr. Boyd's During the administrative appeal, Superin......
-
Santiago-Lugo v. Warden
...Our sister circuits have consistently rejected claims similar to this one, on much the same reasoning. See, e.g., Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir.2003) (finding that because the factual basis of the investigative report offered the petitioner adequate information to defend aga......
-
Pham v. Univ. of La. at Monroe, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00467
...on point in the student discipline case law; however, analogies can be drawn from other arenas. For example, in Northern v. Hanks , 326 F.3d 909, 910 (7th Cir.2003), a prisoner was charged with smuggling tobacco into the facility with the help of a staff member. Prison officials charged the......
-
Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. South Carolina
...in the notice because the inmate had notice of the "conduct" constituting the basis for his rule violation); Northern v. Hanks , 326 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) ("Because the factual basis of the investigation report gave [the inmate] all the information he needed to defend a......
-
Northern v. Hanks.
...Appeals Court GOOD TIME Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2003). A state prisoner whose demotion to a lower credit-earning class was affirmed by a prison disciplinary reviewing authority, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition and the prisoner......