A fte r ex am in in g t h e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . See F ED . R. A PP . P . 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals For t h e S eve n t h C irc u it Ch i cag o , I l l i n o i s 6 0604 Subm i tte d Jul y 1 5, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly16 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 2910 BARRY L. BAL L, P et it ioner-App el lant,

v . G R E G GR A M S, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe W est er n Dis tr i ct o f W i sc o ns i n. N o. 07
- cv- 670-bbc Barbar a B. Crabb , Chie f Judg e . O R D E R W i sco nsi n pri sone r Barr y Bal lpeti ti oned the dist ri ct c ourtf ora w ri t o fhabea s c or p u s u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 , alleg in g t h at h e w as d ep riv ed of go od -tim e c re d its in viol ation of his du e-proc ess rights u nd er the Fou rteen th A m en d m en t. Th e d istri ct cou rt f o u n d th a tth e p r i s o n a u th o r i t i e s a c t e d p r o p e r l y a n d d e n i e d B a l l ’ s p e t i t i o n . We a ffi r m. 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08
- 2910 Page 2

Pri son offi ci al s a t Oshko sh Cor re cti onalInsti tuti on i ssued Bal la conduct r epor t that c h ar ge d h im w ith se x u al c on d u c t a n d ba tt er y in vio lat ion of th e W isc on sin p ris on co d e. See W IS . A D M IN . C ODE §§ D O C 303.12, 303.15. Th e repo rt conc lud ed , based on th e sw orn st at em en ts of five co n fid en tia l info rm an ts (on ly th re e w er e n ot ar ize d ), th at B all en ga ge d in re peated se xual conta ct with one i nm ate ( Ball ’ s for m ercel l m ate ) and att em pted sexual co nt ac t wi tht wo o th er s ( who wer e no t na m ed) . T he r epo r t al so c ha r g ed Bal lwi ths tr i k i ng hi s for m ercel l m ate o n the f ace hard eno ugh to l eave a re d m ar k. The r epor t s um m ar i zed each i nfo rm ant’ s s w or n sta tem ent, but did notdi scl ose the i denti ti es ofthe i nfo rm ants, w h o fe ar ed for th eir p er so n al s afe ty , or th e t im es an d loc at ion s o f th e e ve n ts . A t the di sci plinaryhear i ng, Bal lo bj ecte d to w i thhol ding the t i m es and l oca ti ons of th e incide nt s and fil ed a w ritten stat em en t d en ying allthe ch arges. T he discip lina ry com m i tte e, tho ugh, f ound B al lgui l ty ofm i sco nd uct with hi s for m ercel l m ate . I t e xplained that i t r evi ew ed the sw or n sta tem ents ofthe fi ve i nfo rm ants and fo und the sta tem ents to be cre dibl e, detai l ed, and consi ste nt with one anothe r. The c om m i tte e a l so note d that Bal lhad pr o vi ded no e vi den ce t o c o r r o bo r at e hi s den i alo fwro ng do i ng . I t se nt en ce d Ba l lt o e i g ht days o fadj ustm ent s egr ega ti on, 36 0 days o fpro gr am se gr ega ti on ( re sul ti ng i n a l oss o f go od -tim e c re d its ), an d a tr an sfe r to an ot h er ins tit u tio n . Aft ere xha us tinghi s r emedi es i n the pr i so n, Ba l lfi l ed a pet i ti o n fo rr ev i ew in the W isc on sin st at e c ou rt s, as h e w as req u ire d to d o b efo re tu rn in g t o th e fe d er al c ou rt s. M cAt e ev. Cowan , 25 0 F . 3d 506, 50 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) . The W i sco nsi n Court ofA pp eal s, the l ast st at e c ou rtto h ea r h is c as e, affir m ed th e d en ial of B all’s p et itio n . See Sta te of Wisco nsin ex re l . Bal l v. Frank, 712 N .W .2d 87, 200 6 W L 40 76 89 (W isc . A p p . 200 6) (u n p u b lish ed ord er ). That co urt concl ud ed that the no ti ce Bal lr ecei ved w as suffi ci ent forhi m to m ount a d efense against th e ch arges of a sexu al r elationsh ip w ith his form er cell m ate an d a battery aga i nst hi m . I t e xpresse d concern abo ut withhol ding detai l s r ega rdi ng the two other al l ege d i nstance s o fat tem pted sexualco nd uct, but concl ud ed that i ts concern w as m itig at ed be c au se B all w as n otp u n ish ed for th os e a c ts , on ly for th os e a ga in sth is c ellm at e. A s t o the c harg es concerni ng Bal l ’ s ce l l m ate , bec ause the tw o m en were housed to gether f or o nl y abo ut6 0 day s, the c o ur t co nc l ude d tha t Bal lha d no ti ce o fthe g en er alt i m e o fthe offense. F i nal l y, the cour t r efused to di scr edi t the two st ate m ents that w er e no t no tar i zed b e c a us e the y we r e ma de u nd e ro a th a s r e qu i r e d b y the Wi s c o ns i n Admi ni s t r a t i v e Co de § D O C 303.81(5). Bec au se the pr i so n’ s di sc i pl i na r y pr o ce edingde pr i ve d Ba l lo fg o o d- ti m e cr edi ts , he proper l y b ro ught hi s peti ti on under 2 8 U.S . C. § 2 254 to cl ai m thatthe proce edi ng deni ed h im d u e p ro c es s. SeeW olff v. M cD onnell, 41 8 U.S . 52 9, 55 7, 57 2 ( 1974 ) . F urther m or e,N o. 08
- 2910 Page 3

because the W i sco nsi n Court ofA pp eal s deci ded the m er i ts ofBal l ’ s chal l enge to hi s pri son d isc ip lin e, th e lim ite d -re vie w p ro vis ion s o f 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d ) ap p ly. W hitev. Ind. P arole Bd. , 26 6 F . 3d 759, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) . As re l evanther e, federa lco l l ate ra lr el i efi s no t avai l abl e unl ess the sta te- cour t a dj ud i cati on was co ntra ryto o r an unrea sonab l e a pp l i cati on offedera ll aw as deter m i ned by the S up re m e Cour t. 2 8 U.S . C. § 2 254( d)( 1) . W e r evi ew d e nov o the d istri ct cou rt’s app li cation of th ese p rinciples in con side ring a pet iti on for a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s. Julia n v . B a rtley, 495 F.3d 48 7, 49 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). On app ealBal lr ai ses two pro ceduralchal l enges to the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on. F i rs t he c o m pl ains tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t i nc o r r ec tly pl ac ed th e bur deno n h i m t o s ho w tha t th e d ec isio n of th e W isc on sin co u rtw as co n tr ar y t o th e p re c ed en t o f th e Su p re m e C ou rt . B u t it is B all, n otth e p ris on , w h o b ea rs th at bu rd en . SeeBa dell e v. C orre ll, 45 2 F . 3d 648, 65 9 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ); He nry v . Page, 22 3 F . 3d 477, 48 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) . Bal lnext conte nd s that he w as not gi ven achance to ar gue fully hi s peti ti on t o the di str i ct c ourt . But the co urt f ol l owed th e pr o ce dur es i n the Rul es Go ve r ni ngS ec ti o n 2 25 4 Cas es . Ba l ls ubmi tt ed a pet i ti o n s et ting for th h is p ro p os ed gro u n d s fo r re lief, seeR u le 2 (c ), he rep lied to th e s ta te ’s a n sw er to h is p et itio n, seeRu le 5( e), and he even fil ed a 21-pag e obj ection to the m agistrate j ud ge’s report and rec om m endati on— al lo fwh i ch the dist ri ct c ourtco nsi dered. And , fi nal l y, Bal ldoes not i denti fy a ny i ssue that he was prev ented fro m r ai si ng. Bal l ’ s m o sts er i o us a tt ac ks ur r o unds the abs en ce o fa ny da te s o rl o ca ti o ns i n the pri son’ s char gi ng docum ent. He ass er ts that he was unabl e t o pu t o n an e ffecti ve defe nse wi th o utthi s i nf o r m at i o n. He al so c o nt es ts the W i sc o ns i n c o ur t’ s co nc l us i o n tha t th e re l ati onshi p too k pl ace du ring the 60
- day per i od i n w hi ch the tw o m en were double
- cel l ed bec au se th e tim e of th e offen se w as ne ver state d i n th e ch arging d ocu m en t or anyw he re els e in th e a d m in ist ra tiv e re c or d . H e in sis ts , also , th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld h av e h eld ane vi den ti ary he ar i ngt o i den ti fy the pr i so n’ s r ea so ns f o rno t r ev ea l i ngthe l o ca ti o ns a nd ti m es, wh i ch Bal lbel i eve s would notwithst and scr uti ny. T h e Su p re m e C ou rth as h eld th e n ot ice of p ris on d isc ip lin ar y c h ar ge s is su fficie n t if i t “ i nfo rm [ s] [ Ball ] o fthe charg es and . . . enabl e[ s] hi m to m ar shalthe f acts and prepar e a defe nse. ” W

olff , 4 18 U. S . a t 56 4. T he no ti ce s ho ul d a l er t th e i nm at e to the r ul e th athe alle ge d ly v iola te d an d su m m ar ize th e fa c ts u n d er lyin g t h e c h ar ge . W hi t f or d v . Bogl i no , 63 F. 3d 527, 53 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) . In thi s ca se, the pri son tol d Ballwh om he was ac cused of ac tinga g ains t ( hi s f o r m erc el l m at e) a nd wha t o ffen se s he was a cc us ed o fc o m m i tt i ng ( se xua la ct s an d a b at te r y ) . Ev enwi th o utkno wi ngthe pr ec i se da te s an d l o ca ti o ns o fthe m i sco nd uct, Bal lco uld s ti l lga therev i dence to m ount a defense aga i nst the char ges . F or exam ple , i n additi on t o hi s o w n sworn st ate m ent, he c oul d have s ought the t est i m ony of h is for m er ce llm at e t o s u p p or t h is d en ial of a n y s ex u al m isc on d u c t o r b at te ry .N o. 08
- 2910 Page 4

A l though the dates and l oca ti ons m i ght ha ve hel ped B al l, o ur t aski s l i m i ted to deci ding w hetherthe W i sco nsi n cour t’ s co ncl usi on that the not i ce was s uffi ci ent i s a n u n re as on ab le a p p lica tio n of Su p re m e C ou rtp re c ed en t. See 28 U. S . C. § 2 25 4( d) ( 1) . T he dec i si o n i s r ea so nabl e i fi t i s “mi ni m al l y c o ns i st en t wi ththe f ac ts a nd c i r cumst an ce s o fthe case . ” Schul tz v. Page, 3 13 F . 3d 10 10 , 1 01 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) . Ba l lc i te s to di st r i ct - co ur t an d c irc u it-c ou rtd ec isio n s t h at h e b elie ve s s u gg es t t h at th e W isc on sin co u rtw as w ro n g. See M cC o llum v. M iller, 695 F.2d 10 44 , 104 8-8 9 (7 th C ir. 19 82 ); W as hi ngt on v. Chrans , 7 6 9 F . S up p. 10 45 , 105 4 (C .D . I ll. 19 91 ); Fra nk lin v . Isra el , 537 F. Sup p . 1112, 1117-18 (W . D . W isc. 1982); R ineh a rt v. B rew er, 48 3 F . S up p. 16 5, 16 9 ( S. D. I owa 1980 ) . But these case s s how , atm ost, th at an ot h er co u rtm ay h av e v iew ed th e s u fficie n c y of n ot ice d iffer en tly th an th e W isc on sin c ou rt, no t t h at th e W isc on sin co u rt ’s d ec isio n w as u n re as on ab le. Se eSchr i r o v. La ndr igan, 550 U . S. 465, 473 (2007 ) (“Th e qu estion u nd er A E D PA i s not w he th er a fed eral court bel i eve s the st ate co urt’ s dete rm i nati on was i ncor re ct b ut wh etherthatdeter m i nati on was unr ea so nabl e—a s ubs ta nt i al l y hi g he rthr es ho l d. ”) . And e ve n Mc C o l l u m re cogni zes that pri son offi ci al s m ay w i thhol d the t i m e a nd pl ace ofan a l l ege d offense i fo therpro cedural safeguar ds ar e pr ese nt to guar d against e rr or s, such a s r equi ring tha t s tat em ents be under o ath, a s was do ne he r e. 6 95 F . 2d at1 04 8- 49 . Wi th o uta ny S upr eme Co ur t ca se r equi r i ng dat es a nd l o ca ti o ns , i t was no t unr ea so nabl e f o rthe W i sc o ns i n c o ur t to c o nc l ude tha t th e noti ce was s uffi ci ent. Ther ef or e the federa ldi str i ct c ourtdi d not nee d to i nquir e further i nt o the pr i so n’ s r ea so ns f o rno t di vu l g i ngtha t i nf o r m at i o n. F i na l l y, Ba l lo bj ec ts tha t two o fthe c o nfi den ti als ta te m en ts wer e no t no ta r i ze d, a nd th erefore the d iscipli na ry com m ittee shou ld h ave d isregard ed them . Th e W iscons in C ou rt ofA pp eal s r ej ecte d thi s co ntenti on be cause the s tat em ents w er e m ade under o ath. Bal lhas poi nted to no Suprem e Cour t ca se that com pel s, as a m att ero fdue proc ess , the opposi te c on c lu sio n . T h e c as e h e d oe s c ite , Agui l arv. Te xas , 3 78 U. S . 1 08 , 1 14
- 15 ( 19 64 ) , di sc us se s th e use o fi nfo rm ants i n fi nd i ng probabl e ca use in a c ri m i nalco ntext— i napp l i cabl e t o pri son d isc ip lin ar y p ro c ee d in gs . SeeW olff , 418 U . S. at 556 (“Prison d iscipli na ry proc eed ings are not part ofa cri m i nalpro secuti on, and the fullpanopl y o fr i ghts du e a defendant i n such p ro c ee d in gs d oe s n otap p ly.” ). A c c or d in gly , th e W isc on sin co u rtd id n otu n re as on ab ly deci de that the di sci plinaryco m m i tte e co uld r el y o n the sw or n but unnotar i zed st ate m ents. W e AF F I RM the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fBal l ’ s peti ti on fora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus.