IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DRE BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-787

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Petition under 28

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in

State Custody filed by Dre Brown on August 1, 2013. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to

close this case.

BACKGROUND

Dre Brown, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition

challenging his prison disciplinary proceeding (WCC 13-05-272)

which was held at the Westville Correctional Facility on May 22,

2013. The Discipline Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of

possessing an electronic device in violation of B-207 and

sanctioned him with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and

demoted him to Credit Class 2. Brown administratively appealed, but

the only argument he presented was that the coat in which

electronic device was found was not his. In the habeas corpus
petition he presents four claims, but two of them are merely

restatements of the argument that there was insufficient evidence

to find him guilty.

DISCUSSION

The respondent argues that Brown has procedurally defaulted

Grounds One and Two because he did not raise them during his

administrative appeal. In Ground One he argues that the hearing

officer was not impartial. In Ground Two he argues that he was

denied a witness. “[T]o exhaust a claim, and thus preserve it for

collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must present that legal

theory to the . . . Final Reviewing Authority . . ..” Moffat v.

Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002). The form used by White

to file his habeas corpus petition ask him if he exhausted these

claims by raising them during his administrative appeal. DE 1 at 2.

White indicated that he had, but his Disciplinary Hearing Appeal

shows that he did not. Rather, he only raised one claim arguing

that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty. DE 4-4 at

1. Because Grounds One and Two are unexhausted, they cannot be a

basis for habeas corpus relief. 

In Grounds Three and Four, he argues that there was

insufficient evidence to find him guilty. In evaluating whether

there is adequate evidence to support the findings of a prison

disciplinary hearing, “the relevant question is whether there is

2
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). Even a conduct report alone can provide

evidence sufficient to support the finding of guilt. McPherson v.

McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). Here, the conduct

report stated:

On the above date and approximate time, I Officer M.

Jones was performing a secure round when I observed

Offender Brown, Dre # 139438 with a cell phone charger

hanging out his coat pocket. I, officer Jones then gave

Offender Brown an order to give me the device, to which

he complied.

DE 4-4. 

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.

Hill, 472 U.S. at 457 (quotations marks and citation omitted). 

[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only]

have the support of some evidence in the record. This is

a lenient standard, requiring no more than a modicum of

evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as the

record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of

the disciplinary board were without support or otherwise

arbitrary. Although some evidence is not much, it still

must point to the accused’s guilt. It is not our province

to assess the comparative weight of the evidence

underlying the disciplinary board’s decision. 

Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation

marks, citations, parenthesis, and ellipsis omitted). 

Here, there was sufficient evidence to find Brown guilty of

possessing an electronic device. Though he argues that there was

3
evidence that the coat belonged to another inmate, he presented

that argument to the DHB and it weighed the facts and found against

him. There is no indication that the decision was arbitrary. “The

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). Unlike in

Austin v. Pazera, __F.3d __, 2015 WL 710356 (7th Cir. February 19,

2015), here the DHB had evidence to support its conclusion that the

contraband was found in his coat because the reporting officer

stated that it was hanging out of the pocket of his coat. It was up

to the DHB to resolve who owned the coat. Though the DHB may have

reached the wrong conclusion, it is not for this court to re-weigh

the evidence. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the petition for

writ of habeas corpus, and DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case.

DATED: March 19, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

4