Sweeney v. Parke

• Decision Date: 12 May 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-1680,96-1680
• Parties: Norman SWEENEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Al C. PARKE, Superintendent, and Pamela Carter, Indiana Attorney General, 1 Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 716

113 F.3d 716

Norman SWEENEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Al C. PARKE, Superintendent, and Pamela Carter, Indiana

Attorney General, ¹ Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-1680.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 17, 1997.

Decided May 12, 1997.

J. Timothy Eaton (argued), Coffield, Ungaretti & Harris, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Robert D. Bugher, Indiana Department of Corrections, Legal Services Division, Indianapolis, IN, Jeffrey A. Modisett, Carol A. Nemeth (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Al C. Parke.

Jeffrey A. Modisett, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Pamela Carter.

Before BAUER, FLAUM, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Norman Sweeney currently is incarcerated at Indiana State Prison ("ISP"), which is operated by the Indiana Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). After finding that Sweeney tampered with the lock on his cell door, the Conduct Adjustment Board ("CAB") imposed various sanctions, including the reduction of Sweeney's earned credit time. Sweeney exhausted all administrative remedies. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the denial of which we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Sweeney's disciplinary hearing, the subject of this appeal, arose from a Report of Conduct issued by Sergeant M.V. Neary. On July 3, 1995, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Sergeant Neary saw a large white blanket lying across the railing and covering half of the upper range of the B cell block at the ISP. As Sergeant Neary climbed the stairs of the B cell block, he saw Sweeney walk into his cell and attempt to close the door without anyone noticing. Sergeant Neary then checked all of the doors in the B cell block and found Sweeney's door unsecured. Sergeant Neary concluded, "Inmate Sweeney was secured in his cell at 11:00 a.m. Thus the only way he (Sweeney) would have been able to get out of his cell would be to tamper with the locking device." The Report of Conduct cited Sweeney with a violation of Adult Disciplinary Policy Procedures Code 226.

On July 5, 1995, Sweeney received a copy of the Report of Conduct and a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing, which informed Sweeney that a CAB proceeding was scheduled for the following day. The Notice of Disciplinary Hearing indicated that Sweeney pleaded "not guilty" to the charges against him, that he requested a lay advocate to assist him at the hearing, and that he did not wish to call any witnesses at the hearing.

Both Sergeant Neary and Sweeney testified at the disciplinary hearing on July 6, 1995. Sweeney denied the allegations in the Report of Conduct to no avail. The CAB found Sweeney guilty of the offense and sanctioned him with loss of privileges for three months, disciplinary segregation for one year, demotion from Credit Class II to Credit Class III, and loss of 180 days of earned credit time or "good-time credit."

Sweeney appealed the CAB's findings and sanctions to ISP Superintendent Parke, claiming that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction. The appeal was denied. Sweeney next appealed to the IDOC's Disciplinary Review Manager of Adult Operations, who, finding no error, also upheld the conviction. Sweeney then turned to the federal courts. He unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, Sweeney claimed that he was deprived of due process at his disciplinary hearing because he was denied access to witnesses and documentary evidence and because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. This appeal followed and raises the same issues advanced below.

ANALYSIS

Entitlement to Due Process Protection

The parties do not dispute that Sweeney's loss of 180 days' good-time credit constitutes a deprivation of a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. "[U]nder Indiana law, state prison inmates have a protected liberty interest in earned good-time credits.... [T]he state may not deprive inmates of good-time credits without following constitutionally adequate procedures to insure that the credits are not arbitrarily rescinded." Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 719 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)). Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), the most recent Supreme Court opinion to address the scope of inmates' federal due process protection, does not alter this conclusion. Under Sandin, an inmate is entitled to due process protection if "the State's action will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence." Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2302. Such is the case where an Indiana inmate, like Sweeney, loses his good-time credits. See Ind.Code § 35-50-6-1(a) (indicating that an inmate's earned credit time shortens his period of incarceration).

Standard of Review

Section 104(3) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA"), adds to the existing habeas statute a new § 2254(d), which prescribes the appropriate treatment of legal determinations made by a state court. A writ may not be granted unless the state court's adjudication of the petitioner's claim resulted in a decision that "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," id. § 2254(d)(2). The AEDPA has altered our analysis of habeas claims in several respects relevant to the present case. First, § 2254(d)(1) directs that we are no longer permitted to apply our own jurisprudence, but must look exclusively to Supreme Court caselaw in reviewing a petitioner's claim. Second, our criterion for assessing the reasonableness of a state court's application of Supreme Court caselaw, pursuant to § 2254(d)(1), is "whether the determination is at least minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case." Hennon v. Cooper, 109 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir.1997).

In this circuit, § 2254 as amended is applicable to cases, like Sweeney's, that were pending at the time the AEDPA was enacted. ²

² Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 861-67 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 726, 136 L.Ed.2d 643 (1997). We previously have suggested that the amended habeas statute applies to determinations made by administrative bodies. Evans v. McBride, 94 F.3d 1062, 1065 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 991, 136 L.Ed.2d 872 (1997). Thus, we proceed on the assumption that the amended § 2254 applies to Sweeney's case. ³

Witnesses and Documentary Evidence

Sweeney first claims that his due process rights were violated because he was denied access to his cell block's logbook, which he believes would have alerted him to witnesses who could have rendered exculpatory testimony at his disciplinary hearing. Sweeney hypothesizes that the logbook would have helped him determine whether a locksmith was called to examine the locks in the cell block, whether other inmates' cells were properly secured, whether proper security procedures were followed in the lockdown, and other information, all of which, according to Sweeney, is relevant to the question of whether he tampered with the lock on his cell door. Sweeney also contends that the CAB denied his request to call witnesses to testify in his behalf and that the denial amounted to a deprivation of due process.

Generally, a prisoner is entitled to documentary evidence and should be permitted to call witnesses in his behalf at a disciplinary hearing, unless gaining possession of such documentary evidence or calling witnesses would be inconsistent with institutional safety and correctional goals. Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773-74, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2979-80, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir.1992). Although neither of the parties has identified any specific institutional goal that would have been undermined had the district court provided Sweeney access to the logbook or allowed him to call witnesses, Sweeney was accorded all the process he was due.

First, the record does not reflect that Sweeney requested access to the logbook prior to the hearing or even at the hearing. The CAB could not have improperly denied a request that was never made. The record does indicate, however, that Sweeney requested a continuance of the proceedings, which was denied. Sweeney claims (apparently for the first time in this case) that the continuance would have given him time to review the logbook and determine whom to call as witnesses, and that the denial of his request for a continuance was a violation of his due process rights. In short, Sweeney was given twenty-four hours to plan his defense, and he was not entitled to more. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-79 (mandating that an inmate must receive written notice of a disciplinary hearing at least twenty-four hours in advance). The CAB's denial of Sweeney's request for a continuance thus did not result in a decision contrary to Supreme Court caselaw, nor was it an unreasonable application of Wolff. Under § 2254(d)(1)'s "reasonableness" standard, we give state court judgments more deference than we would under an "erroneous" and perhaps even under a "clearly erroneous" standard. Hennon, 109 F.3d at 334-35. This is a demanding standard that Sweeney has not met.

Second, it is unclear when (or even if) Sweeney requested to call witnesses. The Notice of Disciplinary Hearing indicates that Sweeney did not request to have any witnesses at the hearing. The Report of Disciplinary Hearing likewise is silent as to any...