United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion to
dismiss Petitioner Deandre Bradley's habeas corpus
petition without prejudice because it contains unexhausted
claims. (Doc. 16). Bradley, a state prisoner currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, filed a Petition
for Writ of Federal Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 on May 2, 2019 seeking restoration of 6 months
and 25 days of good conduct credits revoked as a result of
prison disciplinary proceedings. (Doc. 1). Bradley claims he
was denied due process because the disciplinary board did not
permit him to call witnesses in his defense.
asserts that Bradley failed to seek relief through a mandamus
action in the Illinois courts and therefore failed to exhaust
his claims before filing this federal action. (Doc. 16).
Bradley opposes the Motion to Dismiss but admits that he did
not exhaust his remedies in the form of a mandamus before he
filed this case. (Doc. 19).
Bradley is serving sentences of 6 years for residential
burglary and 2 years for resisting a peace officer, imposed
in Cook County, Illinois. (Doc. 16-1, p. 42). He was issued 4
disciplinary reports in July 2018 while in custody at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center. (Doc. 1, pp. 13-18). He
claims that he was not allowed to sign the disciplinary
reports or to request witnesses on those forms when they were
delivered to his cell. He further claims that he attempted to
send a written request for witnesses but it was not delivered
to the adjustment committee before they convened to conduct
his hearing and they refused to continue the hearing so that
his witnesses might be called. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-6). Bradley was
found guilty and punished with the loss of good conduct
credit and a disciplinary transfer to Menard. (Doc. 1, pp. 6,
13-18). He asserts that he exhausted his administrative
remedies through the prison grievance process to the extent
it was available. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-8).
March 6, 2019, Bradley filed a state habeas corpus petition
in Randolph County Circuit Court. (Doc. 16-1). The Petition
was dismissed on March 8, 2019 and Bradley did not appeal.
(Doc. 16, p. 2; Doc. 16-1, pp. 42-43).
filed a mandamus complaint in Randolph County Circuit Court
on August 22, 2019, after the instant action was filed. (Doc.
18; Doc. 19, p. 8). The electronic docket for Randolph County
Circuit Court No. 2019-MR-70 reveals that Defendant's
motion to dismiss was denied and the matter is still
inmates retain due process rights in connection with prison
disciplinary proceedings, but such proceedings “are not
part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of
rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not
apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556
(1974). The minimum due process requirements for such
proceedings are (1) receipt of written notice of the charges
in advance of the hearing, (2) an opportunity to be heard
before an impartial decision maker, (3) the right to call
witnesses and present evidence where this will not be unduly
hazardous to safety or correctional goals, and (4) a written
statement as to the evidence relied on and the reason for the
decision. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-66; Henderson
v. U.S. Parole Commission, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir.
prisoner may raise a due process challenge to prison
disciplinary proceedings in a § 2254 petition, but only
after having exhausted both administrative remedies and state
judicial remedies. McAtee v. Cowan, 250 F.3d 506,
508 (7th Cir. 2001). In that vein, 28 U.S.C.A. §
2254(b)(1) provides in relevant part:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted unless it appears that--
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective
to protect the ...