Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01953/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01953-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1953

___________

John L. Hrbek, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern 

Walter Kautzky, Director, State of * District of Iowa.

Iowa; John F. Ault, Warden, State of *

Iowa, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2004

Filed: January 24, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and RILEY,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Hrbek appeals the denial by the district court1

 of his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Hrbek, an Iowa state prisoner,

claims to have been denied due process in a prison disciplinary hearing that resulted

Appellate Case: 04-1953 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2005 Entry ID: 1858468 
-2-

in his losing sixteen days of good time, a penalty later reduced to two days by an Iowa

state court. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Mr. Hrbek offers various bases for relief: bias on the part of the administrative

law judge (ALJ) at Mr. Hrbek's prison disciplinary hearing, lack of opportunity at the

hearing to present evidence, illegal classification of his disciplinary report as "major,"

deficient notice of the conduct that violated the Iowa Department of Corrections rules

under which he was punished, and lack of any evidentiary support for aspects of the

ALJ's decision. Because the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Thomas J. Shields, which the district court adopted, ably demonstrates why

nearly all of Mr. Hrbek's arguments lack merit, in this opinion we discuss only one

of Mr. Hrbek's arguments in order to clarify why it also fails. 

Mr. Hrbek contends that the ALJ had no evidence to support her decision to

discipline Mr. Hrbek for violating Iowa Department of Corrections Rule 14, which

prohibits threats and intimidation. Mr. Hrbek's punishment resulted from a

conversation that he had with two correctional officers who had found two

pornographic magazines while "shaking down" a cell. Mr. Hrbek told the officers

that he owned the magazines, which he had purchased and then rented to other

inmates. According to the disciplinary notice written by the correctional officer who

reported the incident, Mr. Hrbek predicted that the inmate in whose cell the

magazines were found and Mr. Hrbek "would go around." This statement

substantiates the ALJ's conclusion that Mr. Hrbek had threatened to "take care of the

individual who had allowed [the pornographic magazines] to be confiscated" and

satisfies the "some evidence" requirement set forth in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.

445, 455-56 (1985). See Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1995).

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1953 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2005 Entry ID: 1858468