Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-04087/USCOURTS-ca7-09-04087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Huibregtse
Appellee
Jael K. Speights
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The respondent was not served with process in the district court and is not

participating in this appeal.  After examining the brief and the record, we conclude that oral

argument is not necessary.  See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2010*

Decided July 23, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐4087

JAEL K. SPEIGHTS,

           Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

PETER HUIBREGTSE,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 09‐cv‐517‐bbc

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Jael Speights, a Wisconsin inmate, brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he

was disciplined and sanctioned with the loss of good time.  The district court denied the

petition.  We affirm the judgment.

A sergeant at the prison where Speights was housed accused him of soliciting her

sexually and pouring semen into her open soft drink while she was away from her desk.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-4087 Document: 18 Filed: 07/23/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐4087 Page 2

According to the sergeant, Speights had borrowed a pen shortly before her drink was

contaminated, and when she went to his cell to retrieve the pen, Speights was naked.  Later,

after the sergeant momentarily left her desk to store a toilet plunger that Speights returned

to her, she discovered the tainted drink.  The sergeant added that Speights had previously

told her he would “fraternize” with her if he knew he wouldn’t be punished.  A captain

interviewed the sergeant and watched a surveillance video showing that Speights was alone

near the sergeant’s desk during the relevant time frame.  And an investigator told the

captain that Speights had admitted masturbating in his cell before the sergeant’s drink was

tampered with.  Relying on a conduct report drafted by the captain and a written statement

from Speights, a hearing committee found Speights guilty of battery, sexual conduct, and

soliciting prison staff.  See WIS. ADMIN. CODE §§ DOC 303.12(2), 303.15(1)(d) & (f), 303.26(6).

The hearing committee never watched the surveillance video, but Speights had the help of a

staff advocate, and the advocate had watched the tape and assured the committee that it did

not contain exculpatory evidence.

After exhausting his administrative remedies, Speights sought review in the

Wisconsin courts, as he was required to do before turning to federal court.  See McAtee v.

Cowan, 250 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2001).  Speights argued that there was insufficient

evidence to sustain the disciplinary charges.  A Wisconsin circuit court upheld the hearing

committee’s decision and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.  See

State ex rel. Speights v. Grams, 768 N.W.2d 63, 2009 WL 617559 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)

(unpublished opinion).  The appeals court deemed the evidence adequate to support the

hearing committee’s determination and, in reaching that conclusion, reasoned that State ex

rel. Ortega v. McCaughtry, 585 N.W.2d 640, 388‐90 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)), authorized the committee to rely on the captain’s summary

of the surveillance video instead of reviewing it directly.  Grams, 2009 WL 617559, at *1‐2.

Speights did not timely seek review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Speights then filed his petition for habeas corpus.  He argued that the hearing

committee did not provide an adequate statement of reasons explaining its decision and

also had been required to view the surveillance video.  The district court conducted a

preliminary review of his petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts and dismissed it.  The district court noted that Speights

had not sought review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as would normally be required,

but concluded it was appropriate to bypass the issue of procedural default because

Speights’s petition failed on the merits.  See Torzala v. United States, 545 F.3d 517, 522 (7th

Cir. 2008).  The district court analyzed the opinion of the Wisconsin appellate court and was

satisfied that Speights could not show that the appellate court unreasonably applied federal

law.  In particular the court concluded that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals “was correct in

Case: 09-4087 Document: 18 Filed: 07/23/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐4087 Page 3

stating that the disciplinary hearing committee was not required to view the video

surveillance tape.”  

On appeal, Speights does not challenge the district court’s review of the decision of

the Wisconsin Court of Appeals but instead complains generally that the hearing

committee, and all of the intermediate courts leading to this one, should have reviewed the

surveillance video.  But the Wisconsin courts decided the merits of Speightsʹs challenge to

his prison discipline, so 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) cabins the scope of federal review. See White v.

Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 763‐66 (7th Cir. 2001); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633, 639

(7th Cir. 2000).  A district court cannot grant relief unless the state‐court adjudication was

contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the Supreme

Court or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.  28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

Lucas v. Montgomery, 583 F.3d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 2009).  Speights does not argue that the

district court erroneously applied § 2254(d), so the judgment must stand.  

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-4087 Document: 18 Filed: 07/23/2010 Pages: 3