A fte r ex am in in g th 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 atora l ar gu m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . A c c or d in gly , t h e a p p e al is s u 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

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d October30 , 20 08 * Deci ded October30 , 20 08

B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 2121 R O B E R T C . B R E N N E M A N JR
. , P etitio ner -Appe l l ant,
v. W EN DY KN I GH T , R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fInd i ana, I ndi an apo l i s Di vi si o n. No . 1 : 0 7
- c v - 1 5 5 3
- LJ M
- TAB Larr y J
. M cK i nney, Judg e . O R D E R In d ian a in m at e R ob er t B re n n em an ap p ea ls fro m th e d en ial of h is p et itio n for a w rit of h ab ea s c or p u s. See 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. He cl ai m s that he w as denie d du e pr oce ss at a disc i plinaryhear i ng be cause, he insi sts , he did notr ecei ve adequate no ti ce o fthe charg e o r NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 2121 Page 2

a su ffi ci en t o ppo r tu ni tyt o pr es en t wi tn es se s, a nd the e vi den ce di d no t su ppo r t th e fi ndi ng of gu ilt. W e a ffirm
. On A ugust 2 9, 20 07, Brennem an r ecei ved a Reporto fCondu ct a ccusi ng hi m o f “e n ga gin g in se x u al a c ts w ith an ot h er or m ak in g s ex u al p ro p os als , ges tu re s, or th re at s” in vi o l at i o n o fs ec ti o n B- 21 6 o fthe Adul t Di sc i pl i na r y Pr o ce dur es g o ve r ni ngi nm at es . T he re p or t e x p lain s t h at B re n n em an h ad rea c h ed ov er th e s h ou ld er of R ev er en d D on n a O lse n, a vo lu n te er ins tr u c to r atth e fa c ility , an d to u c h ed h er br a s tr ap be low th e c olla rb on e. Brennem an o pted to conte st the a l l ega ti on a nd to l d the s cre eni ng o ffi certhathe wis hed to cal las witnes ses i nm ate s Bro si us, S anti ste van, and H ensl ey. At the disc i plinaryhear i ng o n Se ptem ber5, the Board r ecei ved i nto evi dence an e
- m ai lfro m Ol sen in w hi ch she al l ege s that Brennem an, afterar ri vi ng l ate to a cl ass she w as conducti ng in the chapel, walk ed behi nd the chai r w here she w as sea ted, r eached o verhersho ulder, and thr ough herbl ouse to uch ed he rb r a st r ap an d the s o ft ar eab el o w herc l av i cl e. Ol se n s ai d s he was s i tt i ngi n the fro n t ro w atth e t im e, an d th at 15 of th e ro u gh ly 3 0 m en in t h e c las s w er e s itt in g b eh in d h er . Brennem an as ser ted thathe s i m plyta pp ed Ols en o n the shoul der. His thre e witnesse s su bm itted statem en ts attes ting to his good cha racter bu t d id n ot d escribe B renn em an ’s c o n t a c tw i th O l s e n . T h e B o a r d f o u n d B r e n n e ma n g u i l ty a n d r e v o k e d 9 0
- d a y s g o o d
- t i me c re d its , d em ot ed h im in c re d it-c las s, an d ord er ed h im to se rv e 9 0 d ay s in se gr eg at ion . Tw o w eek s l ate r Brennem an fi l ed an adm i ni str ati ve appeal
. Am ong seve ra l conte nti ons, he a sse rt ed that w hen the Reporto fCondu ct was s cre ened, he ha d aske d that al lo fthe i nm ate s in the cl ass be i nter vi ew ed, but w as f or ced to se l ect thre e. He w as seg re gat ed await i ng hea ring, Brennem an expl ai ned, so he c oul d not co nd uct anyfurther i nv es ti g at i o n o n h i s o wn. Buta fte rthe di sc i pl ina r y he ar i ng, Br enne m anc o nt i nue d, he obt ai ned stat em ents fro m thr ee othe r i nm ate s, al lo fwh om m ai ntai n that Brennem an tapped O l sen o n the shoul der a nd thatnothi ng inapp ro pri ate o ccurr ed. The warden rej ec te d B re n n em an ’s a p p ea l, as d id th e fin al re vie w in g a u th or ity . I n hi s § 22 54 peti ti on Bre nnem an al l ege d, am ong othe r thi ngs, thatbec ause he was i n s eg r eg at i o n b efo r e th e di sc i pl i na r y he ar i ng, he c o ul d no t i den ti fy the wi tn es se s who actual l y s aw the i nci dent, and that fi rs t the sc re eni ng o ffi cerand l ate r the Boa rd di sm i sse d as re du nd ant o r i rr el evanthi s r equests f oraddit i onalte sti m ony. Bre nnem an al so cl ai m ed th athe di d no t g eta dequa te no ti ce o fthe c ha r g e an d tha t th e Bo ar d di d no t ha ve s uffi ci en t ev i den ce t o fi nd hi m g ui l ty . T he di st r i ctc o ur t ex pl i ci tly r ej ec te d the l as t two c o nt en ti o ns butdi d no t spe ci fi ca l l y a ddr es s Br enne m an ’ s cl ai m tha t he was de ni ed hi s r i g htt o pr es en t tes ti m ony fro m addit i onalwitnes ses . Our re vi ew i s de no vo . M oore v. Ba tt aglia , 47 6 F
. 3d 50 4, 50 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ).N o. 08
- 2121 Page 3

Br enne m an ’ s cl ai m s ab o utthe no ti ce he r ec ei ve d a nd the e vi den ce unde r l y i ngthe Board’ s deci si on ca n be quick l y r ej ecte d. Brennem an co ntends thatthe noti ce o fthe charg e w as ina d eq u at e b ec au se , he ins ist s, h e d id n otrec eiv e a w rit te n co p y of O lse n ’s e -m ail w hen the charg e was sc re ened. Bre nnem an l ostgo od- ti m e a nd was dem ote d i n cr edi tc las s, so h e h ad a rig h t t o d u e p ro c es s a t h is h ea rin g. Se eSc r uggs v. Jor dan , 48 5 F
. 3d 934, 93 9 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); M ontgom e ry v . Ande rs on , 26 2 F
. 3d 641, 64 4- 45 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. Thus he w as enti tl ed to wri tte n noti ce o fthe rul e he al l ege dlyvi ol ate d and a sum m ar y o fthe conduct u n d er lyin g th at ch ar ge . Se eNor t he r n v . Hanks , 326 F.3d 90 9, 91 0 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); W hi t f or d v
. Bogli no , 63 F. 3d 527, 53 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95)
. Overa w eekbefor e the hear i ng, Brennem an re c eiv ed th e R ep or t o f C on d u c t in for m in g h im of th e c h ar ge by n am e a n d se c tio n n u m b er . That r epor t a l so sum m ar i zes the al l ege d i nci dent. M or eov er, Brennem an co ncedes that Ols en’ s e - m ai lwas re ad to hi m wh en the char ge w as scr eened. Nothi ng m or e was re q u ire d
. See N o rthern , 326 F.3d at91 0; W hit fo rd, 63 F .3d at53 4. A s t o the e vi dence, due proc ess was sat i sfi ed i fthe Board had “s om e e vi dence” t o su p p or t it s fin d in gs . Se ePiggi ev. Cot t on , 342 F.3d 66 0, 66 2 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); W e b b v. Ande rs on , 224 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2000). Bren ne m an argue s tha t no evid en ce su p p orts the Boa rd ’s con clusion that he inten d ed to touc h O lsen in a sex ua l m an ne r. A discip lina ry board ’s re soluti on o ftwo co m peti ng st or i es need onl y hav e s om e f actualsupport, and a b ri ef d es c rip tio n of th e e ve n ts in a d isc ip lin ar y re p or t c an sa tis fy th atst an d ar d
. Johns on v. Fi nna n , 467F.3d 69 3, 69 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); M cPhe rs on v. M cBr i de, 188 F.3d 784 , 786, (7th C ir. 1999 )
. Ol sen r eco unts i n here- m ai lthatBrennem an r eached o verhersho ulderand thr ough h er blo u se to u c h ed h er br a s tr ap w ith h is m id d le fin ge r an d th e a re a b elo w h er cla vic le w ith an ot h er fing er . O lse n ’s d es c rip tio n is en ou gh to su p p or t t h e B oa rd ’s fin d in g. Brennem an’ s r em ai ni ng co ntenti on i s that he w as not perm i tte d to cal lthe i nm ate wi tn es se s who to l d hi m a fte rthe he ar i ngtha t th eys aw hi m t ap Ol so n o n the s ho ul derb ut do no th i ngi na ppr o pr i at e. Br enne m ans ay s th es e wi tn es se s wer e no t l o ca te d b efo r e th e hear i ng be cause the s cre eni ng o ffi cerwould not offerto l et sta ffi nter vi ew the enti re cl ass an d h e c ou ld n otd o s o h im se lf w h ile inse gr eg at ion . C ou rt s m u stex er c ise ca u tio n in ov er tu rn in g th e jud gm en t o f a p ris on offic ial w h o c on c lu d es th atan inm at e’s req u es t t o c all w i tness es w i l lco m prom i se the ne eds and obj ecti ves ofthe i nsti tuti on o r othe rwis e i m pose an on er ou s b u rd en on p ris on st aff. See P o nte v . Rea l, 47 1 U .S. 49 1, 49 6 (1 98 5); W ol f f v. M cD onnell, 418 U .S. 53 9, 56 6-6 7 (1 97 4); W hi t l oc k v. Johns on , 153 F.3d 38 0, 38 6 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). B renn em an ’s cl aim f ail s beca us e he d em an d ed that prison staff interview Olsen ’s entire cl ass — ove r 30 i nm ate s— to deter m i ne wh o saw the inci dent. The o utcom e m ay have differ ed had Brennem an i nstea d request ed that pri son sta ffgi ve hi m a ro ste r ofthe cl ass so th at h e c ou ld n am e o th er w itn es se s t h ath e w an te d to ca ll, s e eKi ngs l ey v . Bure au of Pr i s ons , 937 F. 2d 26, 30
- 31 & n. 6 ( 2d. Ci r. 19 91) , o r i fpri son offi ci al s had r efused hi s r equest to ob ta inst at em en ts from a se lec t n u m b er of sp ec ific w itn es se s, s e ePanne l l v. M cBr i de, 30 6 F
. 3d 49 9, 5 03
- 04 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. Butr equi r i ngthe s ta fft o c o nduc t a fi sh i nge xpe di ti o n,N o. 08
- 2121 Page 4

parti cul ar l y o fthe m agni tude Brennem an r equeste d, w oul d have i m posed to o gr eata burden. M or eov er, the pri son sta ff’ s r efusalto fi nd Brennem an’ s witnesse s di d not prej ud i ce hi m , and thus di d not v i ol ate due proc ess , bec ause Brennem an’ s a pp ealwas denie d even a fterhe s ubm i tte d stat em ents fro m the thre e inm ate s who ass er ted thatthey sa w B re n n em an d o n ot h in g in ap p ro p ria te . SeePiggie, 34 2 F
. 3d at 666- 67 ( expla i ni ng tha t du e pr oce ss w as not vi ol ate d w here deci si on o fpurport edl y b i ase d disci plinarybo ar d w as u p h eld on ad m in ist ra tiv e re vie w ). A F F I R M E D
.