Appeal from the PAUL E. WAGNER v. STANLEY KNIGHT, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 26, 2014 *
Decided December 1, 2014
Before
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14‐2060
Appeal from the
PAUL E. WAGNER,
Petitioner‐Appellant,
v.
STANLEY KNIGHT, Superintendent,
Pendleton Correctional Facility,
Respondent‐Appellee.
United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana,
Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:13‐cv‐416‐JMS‐WGH
Jane E. Magnus‐Stinson,
Judge.
O R D E R
Paul Wagner, an Indiana prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he was denied due process in a prison
disciplinary hearing. Because some evidence supports the finding of guilt, we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP.
P. 34(a)(2).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 14‐2060 Page 2
In August 2013 Wagner covered the window to his cell at Pendleton Correctional
Facility with a blanket. When a correctional officer reached to pull down the blanket,
Wagner struck the palm of the officer’s right hand with a sharp object that the officer
believed to be a razor shard. Another officer then handcuffed Wagner and searched the
cell but did not find anything sharp. The officer who sustained the cut accused Wagner
of slicing his hand with a razor blade and charged him in a conduct report with battery
with a weapon.
At his disciplinary hearing, Wagner denied cutting the officer’s hand and
maintained that he had no sharp object, but the hearing officer found him guilty based
on the conduct report, other staff reports, and a photograph of the officer’s injury.
Wagner was disciplined with one year of disciplinary segregation, a loss of 337 days’
good‐time credit, a demotion in his credit‐earning class, and a written reprimand.
Wagner submitted consecutive administrative appeals, arguing that the evidence was
insufficient to find him guilty of battery with a weapon when a weapon was never
found, but both appeals were denied.
Wagner then petitioned under § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he
was sanctioned without due process because no evidence supported the discipline. The
district court denied his petition, largely on the basis that the conduct report and a
photograph of the officer’s injured hand provided sufficient evidence to support the
hearing officer’s finding of guilt.
On appeal Wagner presses his claim that the evidence was insufficient to find
him guilty. But due process requires only “some evidence” to support the hearing
officer’s decision, Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985); see Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003), and we agree with the
district court that the hearing officer’s determination was supported by the conduct
report, see McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999), and the photograph of
the cut on the officer’s hand. Even if the razor blade was never recovered, these
materials provide “some evidence” to uphold the discipline.
Wagner also argues that the district court erred by refusing to consider two
affidavits from fellow prisoners who asserted that a sharp object was never found in his
cell. But the fact that no weapon was recovered is not disputed, so neither affidavit
undermines the reliability of the evidence (e.g., conduct report, photograph) on which
the hearing officer did rely. See Pannell v. McBride, 306 F.3d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 2002);
Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 720 (7th Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 14‐2060 Page 3
Wagner finally asserts that the prison should have conducted a full investigation
because prison policy requires an investigation when an employee is assaulted and
seriously harmed. But this claim does not bear on whether the disciplinary hearing
comported with due process, and in any event it is a state‐law claim that is not
cognizable on federal habeas review. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991);
Hayes v. Battaglia, 403 F.3d 935, 939 (7th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --