UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

FABIAN WHITE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:12 CV 766

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Fabian White, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his

prison disciplinary proceeding which was held at the Westville Correctional Facility on 

February 22, 2012. The Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Arson in

violation of B-222. White was punished with the loss of 20 days earned credit time. He

raises three grounds in this petition. 

First he argues that there was not some evidence to support the finding of guilt.

“In reviewing a decision for some evidence, courts are not required to conduct an

examination of the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the

evidence, but only determine whether the prison disciplinary board’s decision to revoke

good time credits has some factual basis.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th

Cir. 1999) (quotations marks and citation omitted). “[T]he relevant question is whether

there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the

disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). In this case, there

is some evidence. Mr. White explains that “On February 3, 2012, Officer Quarnstrom
smelled smoke on the unit during a security check of B-Pod. He conducted a search of

my cell (B5-102), and claimed to also ‘smell smoke’ in my cell.” (DE # 1 at 4). Though

the officer’s claim that he smelled smoke in White’s cell is some evidence, that assertion

is also corroborated by White who acknowledges that he too could smell smoke in his

cell. 

Second, White argues that the DHB failed to consider several exculpatory

statements that the burning smell was coming from the vents into every cell on the B5

section of the pod. However, district court’s do not re-weigh evidence presented during

prison disciplinary hearings. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999).

Though it is possible that the burning smell was coming from the vents, “[t]he Federal

Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the

one reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). 

Finally, White argues that he was denied the opportunity to submit video

evidence to corroborate his testimony and the testimony of his witnesses. White and

others testified that Officer Quarnstrom went from cell to cell, but only entered White’s

cell. Though Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974), permits an accused inmate the

right to present relevant, exculpatory evidence, prisoners do not have the right to

present evidence which “would be irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary.” Pannell v.

McBride, 306 F.3d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, the video evidence would have merely

duplicated the testimony already presented. The exclusion of such duplicative evidence

is permitted because “[p]rison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the

2
hearing within reasonable limits.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).

Moreover, a video showing Officer Quarnstrom going from cell to cell is not

exculpatory because it would not be able to provide any evidence as to what he was

able to smell while he was in the hall. Certainly the smell of smoke would be stronger in

a cell where something was burning, but it would not have been unreasonable for the

DHB to have concluded that Officer Quarnstrom was able to identify the intensity and

direction of a smell merely by moving around the hall outside of the cells. 

For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is now DENIED pursuant

to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment

accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December 20, 2012

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT