Littler v. Superintendent, No. 3:2011cv00284 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the petition for habeas corpus. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 8/11/11. (jld) Modified on 8/12/2011 to correct document type (smp).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION PHILLIP MICHAEL LITTLER, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:11 CV 284 JM OPINION AND ORDER Phillip Michael Littler, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary proceeding, held on January 10, 2011, at the Indiana State Prison. At that hearing, he was found guilty of threatening or intimidating in violation of B-213 and deprived of 15 days earned credit time. Littler raises only one ground to challenge that finding. He argues that he was not permitted to see the internal affairs investigative report, 10-ISP-170-IA, regarding the incident underlying the disciplinary proceeding. This is not a basis for habeas corpus relief because prison disciplinary boards are entitled to receive, and act on, information that is withheld from the prisoner and the public . . .. White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir. 2001). Therefore withholding the confidential report prepared by internal affairs did not violate due process. Though Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) guarantees the right to present relevant, exculpatory evidence, Wolff concluded that disciplinary boards need not place on the record all of the evidence that influences their decisions. The Court recognized that considerations of institutional security may militate against full disclosure. White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir. 2001). For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Date: August 11, 2011 s/James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
