IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JESSE McNEELEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1703

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Amended Petition under

28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by

Petitioner, Jesse McNeeley, on July 31, 2014 (DE #5). For the

reasons set forth below the petition (DE #5) is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

McNeeley was found guilty by the Disciplinary Hearing Body

(DHB) at the Westville Correctional Facility of possessing a

controlled substance in violation of B-202 on February 10, 2014. 

As a result of that hearing (WCC 14-02-55), he was deprived of 90

days earned credit time. 

DISCUSSION

McNeeley argues that the DHB considered drug test results

which were classified as confidential and not shown to him.

However, the Screening Report (DE #5 at 10) indicates that McNeeley
did not request drug test results or any other physical evidence.

Moreover, “prison disciplinary boards are entitled to receive, and

act on, information that is withheld from the prisoner and the

public . . ..” White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th

Cir. 2001). McNeeley also objects that prison officials, rather

than the hearing officer, decided that the test results were

confidential. However, the violation of a prison rule is not a

basis for habeas corpus relief, because “[i]n conducting habeas

review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction

violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). 

McNeeley also argues that “the record is devoid of evidence

concluding possession of a ‘controlled substance.’” (DE #5 at 4.)

Though McNeeley has not submitted the drug test results because

they were not provided to him, here, the conduct report alone is

sufficient evidence to have found him guilty. See McPherson v.

McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). “[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 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.

2
Id. (quotations marks and citation omitted, emphasis added). Here,

the Conduct Report states: 

On the above date and time, I Sgt. Pomeroy

located a composition book containing what

appeared to be a rolled cigarette containing a

green leafy substance. In the book was a state

form - Notice of Confiscated Property – with

offender McNeeley, Jessie #159364 name on the

form. 

(DE #5 at 11.) To satisfy due process, there need only be “some

evidence” in the record to support the disciplinary decision.

Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455

(1985). “This is a lenient standard, requiring no more than a

modicum of evidence.” Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th

Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, it was

not unreasonable for the DHB to have believed the officer’s eye

witness report that he found a green leafy substance in a cigarette

hidden in composition book. So too, it was not unreasonable for

the DHB to have concluded that the book and the green leafy

substance belonged to McNeeley because it contained a form that had

been issued to him. Finally, it was not unreasonable for the DHB

to have inferred that the green leafy substance which McNeeley was

hiding in the book was a controlled substance. Though these are

certainly not the only conclusions that could have been reached,

“[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

3
(1985). Therefore, McNeeley has not presented any basis for habeas

corpus relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the amended petition (DE #5)

is DENIED. 

DATED: August 27, 2014 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

 United States District Court

4