NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604

SubmittedȱOctoberȱ8,ȱ2009* ȱȱDecidedȱOctoberȱ9,ȱ2009

Before

FRANKȱH.ȱEASTERBROOK,ȱChiefȱJudge

RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge

TERENCEȱT.ȱEVANS,ȱCircuitȱJudge

No.ȱ08Ȭ3685 AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict LARRYȱBOYD, CourtȱforȱtheȱSouthernȱDistrictȱof PetitionerȬAppellant, Indiana,ȱTerraȱHauteȱDivision.

v. No.ȱ2:08ȬcvȬ00041ȬLJMȬTAB

ALANȱFINNAN, LarryȱJ.ȱMcKinney, RespondentȬAppellee. Judge.

OȱRȱDȱEȱR

AȱdisciplinaryȱboardȱfoundȱinmateȱLarryȱBoydȱguiltyȱofȱconspiringȱtoȱforgeȱa documentȱinȱviolationȱofȱprisonȱrulesȱatȱWabashȱValleyȱCorrectionalȱFacilityȱinȱIndiana.ȱ TheȱboardȱpunishedȱBoydȱbyȱstrippingȱhimȱofȱ30ȱdays’ȱgoodȬtimeȱcreditȱandȱimposingȱother

* Afterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱis unnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP. 34(a)(2). No.ȱ08Ȭ3685 Pageȱ2

sanctions.ȱȱAfterȱexhaustingȱhisȱadministrativeȱremedies,ȱBoydȱpetitionedȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt forȱcollateralȱreviewȱunderȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2254.ȱȱHeȱappealsȱtheȱdenialȱofȱthatȱpetition.

Anȱeducationȱsupervisorȱatȱtheȱprisonȱfoundȱtwoȱforgedȱdiplomasȱinȱtheȱphotocopier nearȱherȱoffice.ȱȱTwoȱnames,ȱBoyd’sȱandȱfellowȱprisonerȱGregoryȱHayes’s,ȱhadȱbeenȱtaped overȱtheȱoriginalȱname.ȱȱRobertȱMohler,ȱaȱprisonerȱworkingȱasȱaȱlibraryȱclerk,ȱadmittedȱto theȱsupervisorȱthatȱheȱhadȱtapedȱtheȱnamesȱandȱmadeȱtheȱcopies.ȱȱBecauseȱBoyd’sȱnameȱwas onȱaȱforgedȱdiploma,ȱtheȱprisonȱchargedȱBoydȱwithȱattemptingȱorȱconspiringȱtoȱcreateȱa forgery.

BeforeȱhisȱhearingȱBoydȱaskedȱtoȱcallȱMohlerȱasȱaȱwitness.ȱȱAlthoughȱthereȱisȱno recordȱofȱit,ȱBoydȱswearsȱinȱhisȱpetitionȱthatȱheȱalsoȱrequestedȱanotherȱwitnessȱ(inȱhisȱbrief, BoydȱsaysȱitȱwasȱHayes),ȱandȱthatȱaȱprisonȱofficialȱassuredȱhimȱthatȱtheseȱtwoȱwitnesses wouldȱbeȱcalled.ȱȱNeitherȱwitnessȱappearedȱpersonallyȱatȱBoyd’sȱdisciplinaryȱhearing,ȱbut Mohlerȱfurnishedȱaȱwrittenȱstatementȱasserting,ȱ“Mr.ȱBoydȱIȱdoȱnotȱknowȱnorȱdidȱheȱask meȱtoȱdoȱanything.ȱȱHeȱneverȱaskedȱmeȱtoȱdoȱanyȱofȱthisȱforȱhim.”ȱȱTheȱsubmission concludes,ȱȱ“Statementsȱreflectsȱ[sic]ȱtestimony.”ȱȱBoydȱsubmittedȱhisȱownȱwritten statementȱassertingȱthatȱheȱalreadyȱhadȱaȱgeneralȱequivalencyȱdegree,ȱthatȱheȱthereforeȱhad noȱneedȱforȱaȱforgedȱdiploma,ȱandȱthatȱheȱwasȱinnocent.ȱȱDuringȱtheȱproceedings,ȱoneȱof theȱhearingȱofficersȱconsideredȱwhetherȱBoydȱhadȱpaidȱforȱtheȱforgery,ȱbutȱnoȱevidenceȱof paymentȱemerged.ȱȱInȱreachingȱitsȱdecisionȱtoȱimposeȱdiscipline,ȱtheȱboardȱexplainedȱthatȱit reliedȱonȱtheȱeducationȱsupervisor’sȱconductȱreport,ȱBoyd’sȱownȱstatement,ȱandȱoneȱofȱthe forgedȱdiplomas.ȱȱTheȱboardȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱaccusationȱofȱforgeryȱwasȱ“accurateȱand true”ȱandȱthereforeȱfoundȱBoydȱguilty,ȱforȱwhichȱheȱlostȱ30ȱdaysȱofȱgoodȬtimeȱcredit.

Boydȱchallengesȱtheȱdisciplinaryȱproceedingsȱonȱmultipleȱgrounds.ȱȱFirst,ȱheȱargues thatȱtheȱproceedingsȱviolatedȱprovisionsȱofȱIndiana’sȱAdultȱDisciplinaryȱProcedures,ȱbut violationsȱofȱstateȱlawȱdoȱnotȱjustifyȱcollateralȱreliefȱunderȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2254.ȱȱSeeȱHolmanȱv. Gilmore,ȱ126ȱF.3dȱ876,ȱ884ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1997)ȱ(citingȱPulleyȱv.ȱHarris,ȱ465ȱU.S.ȱ37,ȱ41ȱ(1984)).

Boyd’sȱnextȱclaimȱisȱthatȱtheȱhearingȱviolatedȱdueȱprocessȱinȱseveralȱways.ȱȱHeȱfirst arguesȱthatȱtheȱmereȱpresenceȱofȱhisȱnameȱonȱaȱforgedȱdiplomaȱwasȱnotȱsufficientȱevidence forȱdiscipline.ȱȱButȱdueȱprocessȱinȱtheȱprisonȱdisciplinaryȱcontextȱrequiresȱonlyȱ“some evidence”ȱtoȱsupportȱaȱdecision.ȱȱSeeȱJohnsonȱv.ȱFinnan,ȱ467ȱF.3dȱ693,ȱ695ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2006) (citingȱSuperintendentȱv.ȱHill,ȱ472ȱU.S.ȱ445ȱ(1985)).ȱȱAndȱsoȱlongȱasȱtheȱboard’sȱconclusion couldȱbeȱdeducedȱfromȱit,ȱseeȱHill,ȱ472ȱU.S.ȱatȱ455,ȱevenȱ“meager”ȱevidenceȱwillȱsuffice,ȱsee id.ȱatȱ457.ȱȱAlthoughȱweȱhaveȱcautionedȱthatȱtheȱevidenceȱusedȱmustȱpointȱtoȱtheȱprisoner’s guilt,ȱseeȱLeneaȱv.ȱLane,ȱ882ȱF.2dȱ1171,ȱ1175ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1989),ȱitȱneedȱnotȱpointȱexclusivelyȱin thatȱdirection,ȱseeȱHill,ȱ472ȱU.S.ȱatȱ457.ȱȱBoyd’sȱnameȱtapedȱonȱtheȱdiplomaȱinȱthe No.ȱ08Ȭ3685 Pageȱ3

photocopierȱsufficesȱbecauseȱitȱsupportsȱtheȱcommonȬsenseȱinferenceȱthatȱheȱwantedȱhis nameȱonȱaȱforgedȱdiploma.

Boydȱnextȱcontendsȱthatȱheȱwasȱdeniedȱhisȱdueȱprocessȱrightȱtoȱcallȱwitnessesȱonȱhis behalf.ȱȱSeeȱWolffȱv.ȱMcDonnell,ȱ418ȱU.S.ȱ539,ȱ566ȱ(1974).ȱȱHeȱattestsȱthatȱhisȱverbalȱrequestȱto callȱHayesȱwasȱneitherȱdocumentedȱnorȱhonored,ȱevenȱthoughȱaȱprisonȱofficialȱsaidȱthatȱit wouldȱbe.ȱȱTheȱprisonȱdeniesȱthatȱBoydȱmadeȱthisȱrequest,ȱbutȱevenȱifȱweȱassumeȱthatȱBoyd requestedȱHayes’sȱappearance,ȱandȱdidȱsoȱinȱcomplianceȱwithȱprisonȱrules,ȱBoydȱhasȱfailed toȱdemonstrateȱprejudice.ȱȱSeeȱPiggieȱv.ȱCotton,ȱ342ȱF.3dȱ660,ȱ666ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2003).ȱȱHeȱhasȱnot explainedȱwhatȱHayes’sȱtestimonyȱwouldȱhaveȱbeen,ȱnorȱhowȱitȱwouldȱhaveȱhelpedȱhim.ȱ WithoutȱanyȱharmȱfromȱHayes’sȱabsence,ȱdueȱprocessȱwasȱnotȱoffended.ȱȱSeeȱid.

BoydȱalsoȱcomplainsȱthatȱtheȱsubstitutionȱofȱMohler’sȱwrittenȱstatementȱfor Mohler’sȱliveȱpresenceȱatȱtheȱhearingȱviolatedȱBoyd’sȱdueȱprocessȱrightȱtoȱcallȱwitnesses.ȱ ButȱasȱwithȱhisȱrequestȱforȱHayes,ȱBoydȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱMohler’sȱabsence prejudicedȱhim.ȱȱBoydȱinsistsȱonlyȱthatȱMohler’sȱabsenceȱmeantȱthatȱnoȱoneȱcouldȱaskȱhim whyȱheȱtapedȱBoyd’sȱnameȱtoȱtheȱdiploma.ȱȱButȱBoydȱdoesȱnotȱtellȱusȱhowȱMohlerȱwould haveȱansweredȱthatȱquestionȱorȱhowȱtheȱanswerȱwouldȱhaveȱhelpedȱhim.ȱȱFishingȱfor unspecifiedȱstatementsȱfromȱpotentialȱwitnessesȱisȱnotȱamongȱtheȱdueȱprocessȱprotections affordedȱprisonersȱinȱdisciplinaryȱproceedings.ȱȱSeeȱWolff,ȱ418ȱU.S.ȱatȱ556.

Finally,ȱBoydȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱsupposedȱsparsityȱofȱtheȱrecord,ȱtheȱallegedȱfailureȱto letȱBoydȱcallȱwitnesses,ȱandȱaȱhearingȱofficer’sȱremarkȱthatȱprisonȱofficialsȱlackedȱevidence thatȱBoydȱpaidȱforȱtheȱforgeryȱtogetherȱmeanȱthatȱtheȱboardȱwasȱbiasedȱagainstȱhim.ȱȱBoyd wasȱentitledȱtoȱaȱneutralȱandȱdetachedȱdecisionȬmaker,ȱseeȱPannellȱv.ȱMcBride,ȱ306ȱF.3dȱ499, 502ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002)ȱ(citingȱWolff,ȱ418ȱU.S.ȱatȱ571),ȱbutȱheȱhasȱnotȱshownȱthatȱheȱgotȱanything less.ȱȱTheȱofficer’sȱremarkȱshowsȱonlyȱthatȱprisonȱofficialsȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱevidenceȱthatȱBoyd paidȱforȱtheȱforgery;ȱpayment,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱnotȱnecessaryȱtoȱsustainȱtheȱcharge.ȱȱAndȱwe haveȱalreadyȱexplainedȱthatȱtheȱcausesȱofȱBoyd’sȱotherȱconcernsȱdoȱnotȱoffendȱdueȱprocess.

Accordingly,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱjudgment.