Af t er e xa m i ni ng the br i ef s an d t he r ec or d, we ha ve c on-  clu d e d th at o ral ar g u m en t is u nn ecessar y . T his ap p eal is ther ef ore subm it ted o n the brief s and the rec ord. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a )(2). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 2248
S HAV AUG HN W I L S ON -E L, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. A LA N F I NNA N , R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, T erreH aute D ivisi on. No . 2:06- cv-172- LJM -WTL

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judg e.

S UB MI TT ED A UGUS T 21, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 12, 2008 

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu i t Ju dg e. Thi s ca se re quir es us to co nsi der w hether, wh en a pri son disc i pli nes a n in m at e fo r bei ng a “h abi tual off ender, ” i t m ust perm i t the i nm ate to c h al-2 N o. 07

- 2248 l enge the underl yi ng di sci plina ry co nvi cti ons that prov i de the p r e di c a t e f o r the l a t e r fi nd i ng . We concl ud e th atthe habi tu alo ff en derpr o ce edingdo es no t ha ve the eff ect ofexpanding the r i ghts that the pr i sone r othe rwis e ha s to ch al l en g e an y o f th e ea r l i er o ff en se s. T his m ea ns that I nd i ana pri sone r Shava ughn W il son- El cannot succe ed i n h i s l at est effo r t to o bt ain hab e as c orpus r el i effro m one ofhi s di sci pli naryco nvi cti ons.

I O n A u gu st 18 , 200 4, W ilso n -E l w as in h is c ell ap p ar en tly wai tingt o e at
. He pu sh ed hi s i nt er co m b ut to n, s um m o ni ng Corr ecti onalOffi cerBro ck, to co m pla i n that he had bee n gi ven the wrong tr ay. Offi cerBro ck tol d W ilso n-El that the inter com butto n w as to be used o n ly f orem er genci es, but W i l son- El i gnor ed Brockand pushed the butto n thr ee m or e t im es , w h ile c allin g B ro c k “ a d u m b f***in g b itc h .” Of fi ce r Br o ckwro te up a co nduc t r epo r t ch ar g i ngW i l so nEl w i th cl ass C off ense # 3 48, wh i ch co ver s i nsol ence, vu l g ar i ty, o r pr o f an i tyt o war d st aff

. The ne xtda y, W i l so nEl w as not i fi ed o fthe c ha r g e, pl ea ded no t g ui l ty, a nd re quested a l ay advocat e. A thr ee- m em berC onduct A dj ustm ent Boa rd co nd ucted a di sci pli na ry hear i ng o n the charg e o n A ugust 2 3, 20 04, and fo und W i l son- El gui l ty. The Boar d rec om m ended that he be p u n ished w ith a one-m ont h loss of com m issary pr i vi l eg es a nd a wri tt enr epr i m an d; tho se s an ct i o ns we r e a ffi r me d b y th e F a c i l i t y He a d a n d th e F i n a l R e v i e wi ngAutho r i tyf o r the pr i so n.N o. 07

- 2248 3 Thi s was no t W i l so n- El ’ s fi r ste nc ou nt er wi ththe pr i so n di sc i pl i na r y s y st em. ( I nde ed, th i s appe al i s no t o ur fi rs t e ncounterwith hi m ei ther : se e Wi l s on- El v. Fi nna n, 27 5 F. A pp ’ x 547( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. ) A ccor dingl y, o n A ugust 2 5, 20 04, the pr i so n pr epa r ed a co nduc t r epo r t ch ar g i ng W il son -El w ith being a h abitu al cond uc t rule viol ator, be ca us e he ha d b ee n f o und gui l tyi n e i g htpri so n di sc i pl i nar y pr oce edi ngs in a t w o- m onth per i od. H i s ins ole nce convi cti on o fA ugust 23 w as one oftho se ei ght. On A ugust 30, W i l son- El w as f ound gui l ty ofthe h ab i tualo ff ender ch ar g e. Tha t find i ngl ed to a mor e se r i o us s an ct i o n: re voca ti on o f18 0 days o fgo od- ti m e cr edi t. W il son -El th en fi led a p etition for a w rit of hab e as c orpus , und er28 U

. S. C. § 2254. H i s p eti ti on li ste d A ugust 23, 20 04, as the da t e o fh i s “ g ui l tde t e r mi na t i o n, ” a nd i tde s c r ib ed hi s co nv i ct ion fori ns o l en ce . I n i t, he c o nt en ded th atthe B oard viol ated du e pr o cess becau se one of its m em bers ha d di r ec t k no wl edg e of his ca se a nd a n int er es t i n the outco m e, and he co m pla i ned gener al l y about the c onduct of t h e p ro c ee d in g. H is c om p lain t s aid n ot h in g a b ou t h is habi tualo ff ender convi cti on, wh i ch w as t h e one that l ed to the l o s s o fh i s g o o d- t i me c r e di t s . I ns t e a d, a s h e has ex p lain e d m o re full y i n h is bri ef on ap p eal, his theory i s th athi s cus to dy was e xt en ded bythe s ec o nd c o nv i ct i o n, but the se cond convi cti on r est ed i n parto n the ear l i er i nsol ence convi c ti on, and thus the ea rl i erco nvi cti on i nd i re ctl y l ed to a l oss o fl iber ty. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtreje c te d W ilso n -E l’s a rg u m en t. It l oo ked o nl y t o t h e i nsol ence convi cti on a nd f ound that th e w r i t t e n r e p r i ma n d a n d th e o n e - mo n th l o s s o fc o m-4 N o. 07

- 2248

m i ssa rypri vi l ege s “ did notconsti tute a depri vati on o f su ffi ci en t se ve r i tyt o su ppo r t th e ‘ i n c us to dy’ r equi r ement of§ 2254 ( a) , ” no r a l oss o fa l iber ty in te re st f orpurposes ofthe Du e Pr oce ss Clause , se e Sa nd in v . Co nn er, 515 U

. S. 4 7 2 ( 1 9 9 5 )

. T he di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o f o un d tha tWil son- El h ad n ot ad eq u at ely ex p lain ed h ow t h e lat er u se of h is i nsol ence convi cti on i n the habi tualo ff ender deter m i nati o n made a di ff er en ce . I t th er efo r e di smi ss ed hi s pet i ti o n.

II Lo g i c a l l y, the r e a r e o nl y thr e e thi ng s tha tWi l s o n- El m i gh t be chal l engi ng her e: ( 1) hi s o ri gi nal i nsol ence convi cti on, by i tse l f, ( 2) hi s habi tualoffender convi cti on, by itself, or (3) th e use of t h e i n s o lence find ing to sup p ort th e h a b i t u a l o ff e n d e r d e s i g n a t i o n a n d p u n i s h me n t
. We ad dress the fi rs t t w o bri efl y, bec ause i t hel ps to ex p lain w h y w e fin d n o m er it in th e t h i rd , w h ich w e b elie ve is w hat W i l son- El i s t ry i ng to ar gue. It is e as y t o e lim in at e t h e s ec on d of th es e t h re e p os sib le t h e o ries, becau se, as w e hav e already noted , W il son -El’s com pla i nt does notsa y a word abo ut h i s habi tualo ff ender c on vic tio n . Th e sta te p oin ts ou t th at th is con c eiv ab ly c ou ld be the end ofthe case . A l though i t doe s not s ay w hat m i ni m um num ber of und er l yi ng convi cti ons w oul d suffi ce to prove thi s o ff ense, i t doe s s ay th at knock i ng o ut j ust one out ofei ght woul d m ake no differ ence

— the o ther se ve n wo uld s ti l l b e en o ug h t o s uppo r t th e des i g na ti o n. W i l s o n- El do e s no t r e fut e thi s po i nt, a nd i t wo ul d b e enough o n i ts own to affi rm the j ud gm ent ofthe dist ri ct cour t r ej ecting W i l son- El’ s hab e as c orpus pe ti ti o n.N o. 07

- 2248 5 Bu t per haps W i l son- El is sugge sti ng tha t the habi tual off ender convi cti on does notr esto n such a m ec h ani cal ba si s, a nd tha t i fhe c o ul d e l i m i na te hi s i ns o l en ce c o nvict io n , the n th e B oard m ay ha ve w eighed his record d if f er en tl y . I n c as e th ati s hi s th eo r y, we tu r n fi r stt o the in s o len c e c on vic tio n in is ola tio n . N ot ev er y p ris on d isc ipli narypro cee d ing i s ca pabl e o fgi vi ng r i se to a l ate r case u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 . A s t h e Su p re m e C ou rth eld in Sand in , i f th e prison er w an ts to asse r t th at a d iscipli na ry proce edi n g viol ate d his due proc ess r i ghts, he m ust fi rs t show that he i s a sse rt i ng a depri vati on o fl i f e, l ibe rty, o r proper ty. The Courtspeci fi cal l y r ej ecte d the pro posi ti on th at“ an y s tate ac ti o n t ak enf o r a puni ti ve r ea so n e ncro aches up on a l iber ty i nter es t u n der the Due Pro cess Cl a us e e v e n i n the a b s e nc e o f a ny s t a t e r e g ul a t i o n. ” 5 15 U .S. at 4 84 . In st ea d , l ibe rt y in te re st s a re im p lica te d on ly if t h e s ta te im p os es an “a ty p ica l, sig n ifica n t d ep riv at ion .” Id. a t4 8 6

. T h e C o u r ta l s o a c k no wl e d g e d th a tc l a i ms m i g hta r i se unde r o th erpr o vi si o ns o fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n, i nc l udi ngthe F i r sta nd Ei g hth Am en dm en ts an d the EqualP ro te c tio n C lau se of th e F ou rt ee n th A m endm ent. S ee i d. at 487 n. 11. Pri sone rs fre quentl y b ri ng § 1983 cas es chal l engi ng the co nd i ti ons ofthei r confi nem ent under o n e o r m or e o f th os e t h eo rie s. Se e, e . g. , Es t e l l ev. G a m ble, 429 U

. S. 97( 1976 ) ( Eighth A m endm ent c hal l enge to d elib er at e in d iffer en c e t o s er iou s m ed ica l ne ed ); Tur ne rv. Saf e l y, 4 82 U. S

. 7 8 ( 19 87 ) ( F i r stAm en dm en t an d s ubs ta nti ve du e pr oce ss chal l enge to m ai l and m ar ri age r egul atio n s); Far m e rv. Br e nna n, 51 1 U.S. 82 5 (1 994) ( Eighth A m en d m en t c h alle n ge to vio len t pr iso n co n d itio n s); Lewis v. C a sey, 5 18 U. S

. 3 43 ( 19 96 ) ( F i r stAm en dm en t co m pl aint6 N o. 07

- 2248 ab ou t d ep riv at ion of ac c es s t o c ou rt s); Cut t e rv. Wi l ki ns on, 544 U

. S. 70 9 ( 2005 ) ( chal l enge und erRel i gi ous Land U se and I nsti tuti onal i zed Per sons A ct, 42 U

. S. C. § 2 000c c1( a) ( 1)

- ( 2) , t o pr i so n’ s f ai l ur e t o a cc o m m o dat e r el i g i o us prac ti ces)

. A s W i l son- El’ s i nsol ence case i l l ustr ate s, how eve r, ther e a re m any pr i son disc i pli narypro ceedi ngs that do not i nvol ve const ituti onal l y pr ote cted i nter est s. Pri sone rs d i ssa ti sfi ed w i th the o utcom e o ftho se pr o ce eding s ha ve o nl y the r emedi es pr o vi ded bythe pri son sys tem and, i fava i l abl e, the sta te cour ts. R ep h ra sin g t h e q u e st ion w e p os ed ea rlier , th e is su e is w hetherthe use o fa disc i pli nary c on victi on that di d not i m pli cate i nter est s pro tect ed by the federa l Con sti tuti on o r l aws , t o he l p pr o ve a di ff er en t o ff en se , so m eh o w ope ns th e do o r t o a b el at ed at ta cko n the fi r stc o nv i ct i o n. I n the ar ea ofcr i m i nal sente nces that re l y o n ear l i erco nvi cti ons, the S up re m e Cour t has l eft onl y the narro w esto fo penings for co llat er al ch alle n ge s to p re d ica te co n vic tio n s. T h u s, in C ustis v . U nited Sta tes, 51 1 U .S. 48 5 (19 94 ), th e C ou rt h eld th at a defen dan t ha s no co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht to pur su e a co l l ate ra l at tacko n the val i dity o fa previ ous s tat e convi cti on that was used t o en hance a se ntence und er the Arm ed Caree r Cri m i nal A ct, u nl ess the ear l i erco nvi ctio n w as ob ta in ed in v iol a t i o n of th e rig h t t o c ou n se l. S i m i l ar l y, i n D a niels v . U nited Sta tes, 53 2 U. S

. 374 ( 20 01 ) , the Court hel d that a federa l pri sone r coul d n ot a ttack e ar l i er convi cti ons usi ng 28 U

. S. C. § 22 55, unl ess the ri ght t o c ou n se l w as vio lat ed

. La ck a w a nn a C o un ty D ist. Atty . v. Co ss, 53 2 U

. S. 39 4 ( 2001 ) , cam e t o the s am e co ncl usi on f or sta te pri sone rs wh o w anted to al l ege i neff ecti ve ass i sta nceN o. 07

- 2248 7 of coun sel w ith resp ect t o p r ior con victions th at w ere u se d to en h an c e a se n te n c e. O n ly if co u n se l w as en ti re ly m i ssi ng, i n a w ay that vi ol ate d the defendant’s r i ghts un d er G ideo n v . Wa inw righ t, 37 2 U .S. 3 3 5 (1 96 3), c ou ld s uc h a c ha l l e ng e b e r a i s e d. O n on e le ve l, th e s e n t e n c in g c as es are d ist in gu ish ab le f ro m W i l son- El’ s s i tuati on. Those pri soners al l had an o ppo r tu ni tyt o c ha l l en g e th ei r ear l i erc o nv i ct i o ns a t th e ti m e th eywer e i m po se d, wher ea s W i l so n- El ha d no ri ght t o a federa l tr ibunal ( orfo r that m att era sta te tr ibunal o therthan the o ne furni shed by the pr i son sy s t e m) t o r e v i e w h i s i n s o l e n c e c o n v i c t i o n . B u t the c o ncer n the Court express ed f orfi nal i ty, and i ts w i l l i ngness to gi ve that concern pri or i ty eve n i n the f ace ofea rl i er c o nv i c t i o ns tha tma y h a v e b e e n t a i nt e d b y the S i xth A m en d m en t v iola tio n of in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l, sug g es t to us tha t th e Cou r t woul d fr o wn o n a ny ho l di ng that open ed t h e d oo r i n the prese nt si tuati on t o col l ate ra l att acks o n und er l yi ng di sci plinaryco nvi cti ons. But, W i l so n- El a r g ue s, he wou ld ha ve ha d a n o ppo r tu

ni ty to pu rs ue a hab e as c orpus peti ti on i fthe penal ty f or hi s i ns o l e nc e c o nv i c t i o n ha d b e e n the de pr i v a t i o n o fg o o dtime c r edi ts , r athe r tha n mer el y a wri tt enr epr i m an d an d a b rie f su sp en sio n of c om m iss ar y p riv ileg es . Th at is tr ue, but i t assum es too m uch. T he p ri son w as neverunder any obli gat i on t o gi ve W i l son- El any par ti cul arl eve l o f com mi s s a r y pr i v i l e g e s , a ny mor e tha n i t wa s un de r an obl i gat i on t o ass i gn hi m to the gener al popu l ati on wing of the pr i son orthe adm i ni str ati ve detenti on wing. S ee San di n, s upra. I fi t had si m ply kept an i nfo rm all og describ-8 N o. 07

- 2248 i ngho w w el l o r b adl y W i lson- El b eh av ed ev er y da y, a nd af t e r a c e r t a i n n u mb e r o fb a d d a y s i th e l d a h e ar i ng to deter m i ne w h et h erhe s houl d be punis hed as a so ci al m i sfi t in the pri son, he woul d hav e no com pla i nt. The f act that the pri son has chose n, i n eff ect, to kee p tr ac k of h is behavi orby m or e f or m al l y r eco rdi ng the m i nori nfr acti ons he has accum ula ted sho uld not, i n our v iew , m ake a di ff er en ce . W e r epe attha t W i l so n- El i s no t co nt es ting th e f ac t th atthe pr i so n h as f o und h i m g uilty of v i o l at i ng the r ule s o n ei ght pr i oro ccasi ons.

III W ilso n -E l ap p ar en tly rec og n ize s t h at h e c an n ot ch all enge the insole nce co nvi cti on a s a se parat e m att er, bec a u s e i t d i d n o ta ff e c th i s c u s t o d y . F o r th e r e a s o n s we have expla i ned, the f act that the insol ence convi cti on pla yed a ro l e in the pri so n ’s desi gnati on o fhi m as an habi tualo ff ender, and thus m ay i nd i re ctl y have le d to hi s l oss o fgo od- ti m e cr ed its , d oes notchange m att er s. Si nc e h e has o ff er ed no r eas on ( apartfro m hi s di ssa ti sf acti on w ith the i nsol ence convi cti on) wh y hi s habi tual off ender fi nd i ng vi ola te d the Consti tuti on, we A FFIRM the di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s di s mi s s a l o fhi s pe t i t i o n un de r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 254.

9- 12- 08