Nonprecedential Disposition

*Afterexaminingthebriefsandtherecord,wehaveconcludedthatoralargumentis
unnecessary.Thus,theappealissubmittedonthebriefsandtherecord.SeeFED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedOctober8,2009 *
DecidedOctober9,2009
Before
FRANKH.EASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
TERENCET.EVANS,CircuitJudge
No.083685
LARRYBOYD,
PetitionerAppellant,
v.
ALANFINNAN,
RespondentAppellee.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheSouthernDistrictof
Indiana,TerraHauteDivision.
No.2:08cv00041LJMTAB
LarryJ.McKinney,
Judge.
ORDER
AdisciplinaryboardfoundinmateLarryBoydguiltyofconspiringtoforgea
documentinviolationofprisonrulesatWabashValleyCorrectionalFacilityinIndiana.
TheboardpunishedBoydbystrippinghimof30days’goodtimecreditandimposingother
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No.083685 Page2
sanctions.Afterexhaustinghisadministrativeremedies,Boydpetitionedthedistrictcourt
forcollateralreviewunder28U.S.C.§2254.Heappealsthedenialofthatpetition.
Aneducationsupervisorattheprisonfoundtwoforgeddiplomasinthephotocopier
nearheroffice.Twonames,Boyd’sandfellowprisonerGregoryHayes’s,hadbeentaped
overtheoriginalname.RobertMohler,aprisonerworkingasalibraryclerk,admittedto
thesupervisorthathehadtapedthenamesandmadethecopies.BecauseBoyd’snamewas
onaforgeddiploma,theprisonchargedBoydwithattemptingorconspiringtocreatea
forgery.
BeforehishearingBoydaskedtocallMohlerasawitness.Althoughthereisno
recordofit,Boydswearsinhispetitionthathealsorequestedanotherwitness(inhisbrief,
BoydsaysitwasHayes),andthataprisonofficialassuredhimthatthesetwowitnesses
wouldbecalled.NeitherwitnessappearedpersonallyatBoyd’sdisciplinaryhearing,but
Mohlerfurnishedawrittenstatementasserting,“Mr.BoydIdonotknownordidheask
metodoanything.Heneveraskedmetodoanyofthisforhim.”Thesubmission
concludes,“Statementsreflects[sic]testimony.”Boydsubmittedhisownwritten
statementassertingthathealreadyhadageneralequivalencydegree,thathethereforehad
noneedforaforgeddiploma,andthathewasinnocent.Duringtheproceedings,oneof
thehearingofficersconsideredwhetherBoydhadpaidfortheforgery,butnoevidenceof
paymentemerged.Inreachingitsdecisiontoimposediscipline,theboardexplainedthatit
reliedontheeducationsupervisor’sconductreport,Boyd’sownstatement,andoneofthe
forgeddiplomas.Theboardconcludedthattheaccusationofforgerywas“accurateand
true”andthereforefoundBoydguilty,forwhichhelost30daysofgoodtimecredit.
Boydchallengesthedisciplinaryproceedingsonmultiplegrounds.First,heargues
thattheproceedingsviolatedprovisionsofIndiana’sAdultDisciplinaryProcedures,but
violationsofstatelawdonotjustifycollateralreliefunder28U.S.C.§2254.SeeHolmanv.
Gilmore,126F.3d876,884(7thCir.1997)(citingPulleyv.Harris,465U.S.37,41(1984)).
Boyd’snextclaimisthatthehearingviolateddueprocessinseveralways.Hefirst
arguesthatthemerepresenceofhisnameonaforgeddiplomawasnotsufficientevidence
fordiscipline.Butdueprocessintheprisondisciplinarycontextrequiresonly“some
evidence”tosupportadecision.SeeJohnsonv.Finnan,467F.3d693,695(7thCir.2006)
(citingSuperintendentv.Hill,472U.S.445(1985)).Andsolongastheboard’sconclusion
couldbededucedfromit,seeHill,472U.S.at455,even“meager”evidencewillsuffice,see
id.at457.Althoughwehavecautionedthattheevidenceusedmustpointtotheprisoner’s
guilt,seeLeneav.Lane,882F.2d1171,1175(7thCir.1989),itneednotpointexclusivelyin
thatdirection,seeHill,472U.S.at457.Boyd’snametapedonthediplomainthe

-- 2 of 3 --

No.083685 Page3
photocopiersufficesbecauseitsupportsthecommonsenseinferencethathewantedhis
nameonaforgeddiploma.
Boydnextcontendsthathewasdeniedhisdueprocessrighttocallwitnessesonhis
behalf.SeeWolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,566(1974).Heatteststhathisverbalrequestto
callHayeswasneitherdocumentednorhonored,eventhoughaprisonofficialsaidthatit
wouldbe.TheprisondeniesthatBoydmadethisrequest,butevenifweassumethatBoyd
requestedHayes’sappearance,anddidsoincompliancewithprisonrules,Boydhasfailed
todemonstrateprejudice.SeePiggiev.Cotton,342F.3d660,666(7thCir.2003).Hehasnot
explainedwhatHayes’stestimonywouldhavebeen,norhowitwouldhavehelpedhim.
WithoutanyharmfromHayes’sabsence,dueprocesswasnotoffended.Seeid.
BoydalsocomplainsthatthesubstitutionofMohler’swrittenstatementfor
Mohler’slivepresenceatthehearingviolatedBoyd’sdueprocessrighttocallwitnesses.
ButaswithhisrequestforHayes,BoydhasfailedtoexplainhowMohler’sabsence
prejudicedhim.BoydinsistsonlythatMohler’sabsencemeantthatnoonecouldaskhim
whyhetapedBoyd’snametothediploma.ButBoyddoesnottellushowMohlerwould
haveansweredthatquestionorhowtheanswerwouldhavehelpedhim.Fishingfor
unspecifiedstatementsfrompotentialwitnessesisnotamongthedueprocessprotections
affordedprisonersindisciplinaryproceedings.SeeWolff,418U.S.at556.
Finally,Boydclaimsthatthesupposedsparsityoftherecord,theallegedfailureto
letBoydcallwitnesses,andahearingofficer’sremarkthatprisonofficialslackedevidence
thatBoydpaidfortheforgerytogethermeanthattheboardwasbiasedagainsthim.Boyd
wasentitledtoaneutralanddetacheddecisionmaker,seePannellv.McBride,306F.3d499,
502(7thCir.2002)(citingWolff,418U.S.at571),buthehasnotshownthathegotanything
less.Theofficer’sremarkshowsonlythatprisonofficialsdidnothaveevidencethatBoyd
paidfortheforgery;payment,however,wasnotnecessarytosustainthecharge.Andwe
havealreadyexplainedthatthecausesofBoyd’sotherconcernsdonotoffenddueprocess.
Accordingly,weA FFIRM thedistrictcourt’sjudgment.

-- 3 of 3 --