A fteran e xam i nati on o fthe bri ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e co ncl ud ed that or al * ar gu m en t is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. See Fed
. R. A p p . P. 34(a)(2)
. 

# United 

# S tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d Jul y 2 2, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly22 , 20 09 B efo re JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e JO E L M . FL A U M , 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- 2920 C A R R I E DO U G L A S, P laint if f-A ppell ant,
v. AL AN F I NNAN, D efend a nt-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, Te r r e H au te Di vi si o n. No
. 2 : 0 7
- c v - 3 5 4
- RL Y- W GH R ich ar d L . Yo u n g, Judg e . O R D E R Carr i e Dougl as, an inm ate atthe W abas h County Cor re cti onalFa ci l i ty i n I nd i ana, fi led a p etition fora w rit of habea s corp us , all eging th at his d ue -proce ss rights w ere vio lat ed w h en th e p ris on d isc ip lin ed h im for filin g a frivo lou s a c tio nin s ta te co u rt . See 28 NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 2920 Page 2

U
. S. C
. § 2254. T he district cou rt de nied rel iefand Do ug las app eals. Bec au se th e record e s t ab l i s h e s th a tD o u g l a s r e c e i v e d d u e p r o c e s s b e f o r e b e i n gd i s c i p l i n e d , w e a ffi r m. T hirty years after his con viction for rap e, D ou glas sough t a m otion for d eclaratory j ud gm en t in an Ind iana trial cou rt to order th e pros ecu tor i n th e earli er proc eed ing to turn ove r the v i cti m ’ s m edi caland cr i m i nalr eco rds. The c ourtdeni ed the m oti on a s fr i vo l o us — a det er m i na ti o n tha t l ed to pr i so n di sc i pl i na r y pr o ce eding s be i ngb r o ught aga i nst Dougl as f or“fi l i ng a cl ai m o r acti on found to b e fri vol ous, unrea sonab l e o r gr ou n d les s b y a fed er al, st at e o r ad m in ist ra tiv e c ou rt .” Aft e ra h e a r i ng, a p r i s o n di s c i pl i na r y b o a r d fo un d tha tDo ug l a s h a d ind e e d fi l e d a fri volous claim , and sanc tioned him w ith a w ritten rep rim an d , l oss of one m ont h’s te l eph o ne pr i vi l eg es , a nd l o ss o f9 0 day s’ e arne d c r edi t ti m e. Do ug l as ’ s subs eque nt a dmi ni s t r a t i v e a pp e a l s we r e de ni e d. Dougl as then fi l ed hi s § 22 54 peti ti on, al l eging tha t the di sci plinarybo ar d denied h i m c e r t a i np r o c e d u r a lr i g h t s . H e a s s e r t e d th a tth e b o a r d f a i l e d t o c o mply wi thi t s o wn r ul es wheni t was s l o w bo tht o c ha r g e hi m wi tha r ul e vi o l at i o n a nd pr o vi de hi m the di sc i pl i na r y r epo r t, a nd whe n i t f ai l ed to ho l d the he ar i ng“ i n abe y an ce ” unt i lthe com ple ti on o fhi s ca se bef or e the tr i alco urt. He al so ass er ted thathi s due- proce ss ri ghts w er e v i ol ate d w hen he was notgi ven a co py ofthe boar d’s fi nd i ngs o ff act oral l owed to p resen t evide nc e at the hearing
. Th e d istri ct cou rt found thatthe d iscipli na ry board co m po r te d wi thdue pr o ce ss a nd di smi ss ed th e pet i ti o n. O nap p ea l, D ou gla s g en er ally ren ew s th e a rg u m en t th atth e b oa rd d id n otco m p ly w i th i ts own pro ceduralr ule s when itchar ged hi m fi l i ng a fri vol ous c l ai m . But thi s a questi on o fst ate l aw o r pri son pol i cy, wh i ch does not gi ve ri se to a federa lco nsti tuti onal qu es tio nfor w h ich fed er al h ab ea s re lief is a p p ro p ria te . See E stelle v. M cG uire, 50 2 U.S
. 62 , 67 -68 (19 91 ); P erruqu et v. B riley, 390 F.3d 50 5, 51 1 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); P erry v . M cC a ug htry, 30 8 F.3 d 68 2, 68 8 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). Dougl as al so re i ter ate s that he w as denie d du e pr oce ss w hen the boar d fa i l ed to gi ve him a cop y of its find ings of f act. Du e proc ess req uires th at inm ates in d iscipli na ry p roceed ings be p rovide d w ritten n otice of th e ch arged m iscond uc t at least 24 hou rs before the he ar i ng, the opportunity t o prese nt ev i dence, and a wri tte n sum m ar y o fthe re aso ns f or th e d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n . SeeW olff v. M cD onnell, 418 U .S. 53 9, 56 3-6 9 (1 97 4); Sc r uggs v. Jor dan , 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). A s the district cou rt point ed out, how ever, the record shows that Dougl as w as aff or ded wh ate verpro cess he was due. Ind eed, the f or m that co nt ains the b o ar d’ s fi nding s be ar s Dou g l as ’ s si g na tu r e atthe b o tt o m o fthe pa g e, r efl ec ting th ath e w as m ad e a w ar e o f th e d isp os itio n . (R . 22, E x . C .)N o. 08
- 2920 Page 3

Fin ally , D ou gla s re as se rt s th atth e b oa rd d en ied h im d u e p ro c es s b y re fu sin g h is re quest t o subm i t docum entary e vi dence. W e no te that ther e i s s om e quest i on a s t o w hetherDougl as proper l y m ade such a r equest. On the hear i ng not i ce, a box has bee n c he c k e d t o ind i c a t e tha tthe o ffe nd e rdi d n o twi s h t o h a v e p hy s i c a le v i de nc e p r e s e nt e d; D ou gla s, h ow ev er, d en ies th atit w as h e w h o c h ec ke d th e b ox . T h e d isp u te is im m at er ial, how eve r, bec ause the b oar d al re ady had the docum ents Dougl as say s he w i shed to pr es en t—a c o py o fthe t r i alc o ur t’ s o r dera nd c o pi es o fthe pr i so n’ s di sc i pl i na r y r ul es — an d ad d itio n al c op ies of th es e d oc u m en ts w ou ld h av e h ad n o b ea rin g on th e h ea rin g’s ou tc om e. Du e pr oce ss re quir es onl y that apri sone r be per m i tte d to prese nt docum entary e vi dence that i s m ate ri alto a disp uted p oin t. Se eJohns on , 467F.3d at69 4; P annell v. M cBr i de, 30 6 F
. 3d 499, 50 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. The o nl y i ssue bef or e the bo ar d w as w hetherDougl as’ s s uitwas fri volous, and the boa rd stated in its reportthati t based i ts d ecision on th e trialcou rt’s o r derdi smi ss i nghi s ca se a s fr i vo l o us . Any f ai l ur e o n the pa r t o fthe b o ar d t o ha nd o ve rthe d oc u m en ts , th er efo re , d id n otd ep riv e D ou gla s o f d u e p ro c es s. SeePa nnell, F.3d at50 3. AFFI RM ED
.