Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister, 811 F.3d 911

Background

Donelson, an Illinois inmate, was disciplined after two July 2011 incidents involving guard Jimmie Watson; the adjustment committee revoked one year of accrued good time.
Two guards submitted incident reports alleging Donelson ignored orders, threatened Watson, and later assaulted Watson; Donelson submitted a written statement denying misconduct and requesting surveillance video, a telephone recording, and two witnesses.
The prison incident form instructed inmates to request witnesses/evidence by filling out and tearing off the bottom portion of the form and returning it; Donelson copied the forms and returned the entire pages rather than detaching the bottom slips.
The adjustment committee found Donelson guilty and noted "No Witness Requested"; requested witnesses and recordings were never produced at the hearing.
Donelson sought state mandamus relief and then filed a § 2254 habeas petition claiming (1) insufficient evidence under the "some evidence" standard and (2) denial of due process by being prevented from presenting witnesses and recordings.
The Illinois appellate court denied relief in part on the merits (some-evidence) and, sua sponte, on a procedural ground that Donelson failed to detach the bottom slip; the Seventh Circuit found that procedural ground inadequate and remanded for federal review of the due-process exclusion claim.

Issues

Issue	Donelson's Argument	Godinez/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the adjustment committee’s finding was supported by "some evidence"	The guards’ reports were unreliable and insufficient to support guilt	The incident reports provided adequate detail to meet the low Hill standard	Court: State appellate court reasonably applied the "some evidence" standard; no relief on this claim
Whether Donelson was denied due process by being prevented from presenting witnesses and recordings	He timely requested witnesses/evidence and was improperly denied the ability to present them	State appellate court held he failed to follow form instruction to detach slip; thus procedurally defaulted	Court: The deterrent procedural rule (detaching slip) was not an adequate, regularly followed state ground; federal review of the due-process claim is permitted
Whether the state procedural ground (failure to detach slip) is an adequate and independent state-law bar	N/A (challenge to adequacy)	Respondent relied on appellate court’s post-hoc rationale that Donelson failed to follow the form instruction	Court: That post-hoc procedural rationale was aberrant and not firmly established; it cannot bar federal habeas review
Whether exclusion of proffered witnesses/evidence was harmless	Proffered video, recording, and witnesses could exculpate Donelson and undermine guilt finding	Respondent did not argue that requests were irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary	Court: Could not conclude exclusion was harmless; remand for further proceedings on the due-process exclusion claim

Key Cases Cited

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prisoners have due-process rights in disciplinary proceedings including limited right to call witnesses and present evidence)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard governs sufficiency of disciplinary findings)
Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996) (loss of good-time credits constitutes a liberty interest triggering due process)
Kaczmarek v. Rednour, 627 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2010) (state procedural bar requires a firmly established and regularly followed state practice)
Woolley v. Rednour, 702 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2012) (federal review allowed when state court did not reach merits of procedural-exclusion claim)