The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:
I. Introduction and Background
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Frazier's Report and Recommendation ("the Report") recommending that the Court deny Easter's habeas corpus petition (Doc. 11). Easter filed objections to the Report (Doc. 13) and a motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 12). Based on the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and DENIES Easter's motion for evidentiary hearing.
On May 27, 2011, Steven Easter, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Through his petition, Easter requests (1) the restoration of forty-one days of good time credit that were taken away due to a Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violation, and (2) expungement of the violation from his prison record. On January 16, 2010, prison officials discovered a weapon concealed inside the light fixture in the cell that Easter shared with another inmate, and Easter was charged with violating BOP Code 104, "Possession, Manufacture, or Introduction of a Weapon." Easter contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") assigned to the matter violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process of law by determining Easter possessed the weapon without relying on any evidence linking him to the weapon. On March 12, 2012, respondent filed a response to the habeas corpus petition arguing that there does exist sufficient evidence to support the DHO's finding that Easter possessed a weapon under the lenient evidentiary standard and due to the evidence demonstrating that Easter knew of the weapon (Doc. 6). Easter filed a reply on March 20, 2012 (Doc. 9).
Judge Frazier issued the Report finding that all of the Supreme Court's requirements were met to ensure Easter's due process rights regarding the loss of good time credit and that the DHO's decision was not arbitrary or without support in the record (Doc. 11). Therefore, the Report recommends the Court deny Easter's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. On May 18, 2012, Easter filed objections to the Report (Doc. 13).
Since timely objections have been filed, this Court must undertake de novo review of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 73.1(b); Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may "accept, reject or modify the recommended decision." Willis v. Caterpillar Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the Court must look at all the evidence contained in the record and give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made. Id.
On January 16, 2010, prison officials discovered a prison-made object constructed from an 81/2 -inch unsharpened screw concealed in the light fixture of the cell Easter shared with another inmate. Easter was charged with violating BOP Code 104, "Possession, Manufacture, or Introduction of a Weapon." An investigation was conducted on January 19, 2010, and Easter was then given a copy of the incident report and advised of his rights, which he stated he understood. Easter stated "no comment" after reviewing the report, and he presented no witnesses. From this information, the investigator determined that Easter was properly charged. Easter then stated to the disciplinary committee that the weapon was not his but that he would take the blame to enable his cellmate to return home on time. Then, on January 20, 2010, the matter was referred to a DHO.
At the disciplinary hearing, which was held on February 17, 2010, Easter was advised of his rights, stated he understood his rights, and thereafter denied the accusations of the incident report. Easter again presented no witnesses and failed to introduce any documentary evidence at the disciplinary hearing. He merely stated that "[s]omebody got to take the blame for it, but it wasn't mine." The DHO considered the incident report, the investigation completed on January 19, 2010, Easter's statements, and a photograph of the weapon as evidence. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the DHO then concluded that Easter had committed the violation as charged.
On May 27, 2011, Easter filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus raising the claim that the DHO's decision was based on no evidence linking him to the weapon and, therefore, his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment was violated. Easter seeks (1) restoration of the forty-one days of good time credit that were revoked due to the violation and (2) expungement of the violation from his prison record.
Habeas corpus allows a prisoner to challenge both the duration and the fact of custody, and good time credits reduce the length of imprisonment. Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1836, 1841, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Hanson v. Heckel, 791 F.2d 93 (7th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). Since Easter requests restoration of good time credit, habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy.
Illinois state prisoners have a statutory right to receive good time credits, and such a state-created entitlement to good time credits is a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 344 (7th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). In order to protect the due process rights of inmates where the revocation of good time credits is considered, the Supreme Court mandates that inmates receive (1) advanced written notice of the disciplinary charges, (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 785-86 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985)).
Furthermore, procedural due process requires that the decision of a prison disciplinary be supported by "some evidence." McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786 (citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 454). This "some evidence" standard only requires that the decision not be arbitrary or without support in the record, and thus it is less demanding than the preponderance of the evidence standard. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786 (citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 457). In reviewing the DHO's decision for "some evidence," the Court need not examine the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the evidence; the Court must ...