Court Opinion

ID: 9478898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:01:54.159571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:41.287362
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring. I join the judgment of the court. As the majority points out, the Adjustment Committee imposed substantial discipline on the plaintiffs apart from the revocation of good time. This action therefore is primarily a challenge to the conditions of confinement, not its duration, and there is no requirement that the plaintiffs exhaust state remedies. This is a far cry from the situation before the court in Hanson v. Heckel, 791 F.2d 98 (7th Cir.1986) (per curiam), where the plaintiff, by the artificial manipulation of the relief sought, attempted to transform a habeas corpus action into a civil rights action.
With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court is quite right in concluding that, under the standard of review established in Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution, Walpale v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985), the record is adequate to support the conclusions of the prison disciplinary board.