22. Habeas Corpus.

U.S. District Court DISCIPLINE GOOD TIME

Hoskins v. McBride, 202 F.Supp.2d 839 (N.D.Ind. 2002). A state prisoner filed for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging revocation of earned good time credits and demotion in his credit time earning class, following a disciplinary proceeding. The district court denied the petition, finding that prison officials did not deny the prisoner due process by falling to compel witnesses to name a "certain offender" named in a tip regarding drug trafficking, nor by denying him permission to view security videos and other physical evidence. The court noted that while prisoners have the right to call witnesses to testify on their behalf at disciplinary hearings when it is consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, but that this is not an unlimited right. (Indiana State Prison in Michigan City)

U.S. Appeals Court DISCIPLINE

Martinez v. Hedrick, 36 Fed.Appx. 209 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner filed for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a disciplinary board's reprimand for entering into an unauthorized contract. The district court denied the petition and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmate was not denied due process. The alleged contract was a subscription to Men magazine, unauthorized because the subscription was not prepaid. The court noted that it has not yet addressed whether [section] 2254 or the Due Process Clause are implicated when an inmate alleges only that a prison decision caused his retention in, rather than demotion to, a particular credit-earning class. (Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court DEATH PENALTY

Sanchez-Velasco v. Secretary of Dept. of Corr., 287 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2002). An attorney, who worked for an entity that had been created by a state legislature to provide post-conviction representation to indigent death row inmates, filed a federal habeas corpus petition on behalf of a state death row inmate who did not oppose the execution of his death sentence. The district court granted the attorney limited standing to proceed and then dismissed the petition. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the attorney did not have a significant relationship with the prisoner and thus did not have "next friend" standing to seek habeas relief. (Capital Collateral Regional Counsel of Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court RELEASE DATE

Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a former state governor and other officials. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the claim that the defendants conspired against him and other prisoners to keep them in prison beyond their mandatory release dates was properly asserted under the federal habeas corpus statute, but that the prisoner sufficiently stated a [section] 1983 claim with his allegations that the defendants retaliated against him for using the prison law library by refusing to let him exercise outside of his cell. (Wisconsin)