Paul Eichwedel v. Brad Curry
696 F.3d 660
7th Cir.2012Background
- Eichwedel, an IDOC inmate, had good-conduct credits revoked under 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) after prison disciplinary proceedings relying on a federal court’s use of the term 'frivolous' in sanction decisions.
- Disciplinary process followed state rules: two sanctions for filing frivolous motions, hearing before Adjustment Committee, and a six-month credit revocation.
- Eichwedel challenged the revocation in state court; the trial court denied relief and the appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to improper filing.
- He later filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254, raising vagueness, due process, and some-evidence challenges.
- The district court denied relief on these claims and certified a state-law question to the Illinois Supreme Court regarding Illinois’ interpretation of 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d).
- The appellate panel ultimately certified the Illinois Supreme Court question and stayed proceedings pending that court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) violates the right of access to the courts. | Eichwedel contends the statute chills access by punishing frivolous filings. | State argues no right of access is impaired because the statute punishes frivolous filings only. | No, right of access not violated; challenged path requires certification to Illinois Supreme Court. |
| Whether revocation of good-conduct credits satisfied the 'some evidence' standard. | Some evidence not shown that the filings violated 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d). | Disciplinary orders and district court’s findings constitute 'some evidence'. | Yes, some evidence supported the disciplinary finding under Hill. |
| Whether Eichwedel properly preserved and exhausted claims under AEDPA; whether procedural default bars review. | Claims preserved; State breached procedural avenues; default should not bar review. | Procedural default applies; State may raise defenses; exhaustion required. | State waived the procedural-default defense; AEDPA review proceeding on the merits. |
| Whether the Illinois state court’s interpretation of 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) was properly applied or requires State Supreme Court clarification. | State court misread the statute’s 'specific finding' requirement. | Statutory interpretation aligned with case law and regulatory framework. | Unresolved; Court certifies Illinois Supreme Court to resolve the statute’s elements and application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walpole v. Massachusetts Corr. Inst., 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (due process and 'some evidence' standard in disciplinary contexts)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (right of access requires hindrance of pursuing a legal claim to exist)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (right of access to the courts for prisoners)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (requirement of viable underlying claim to support an access claim)
- Bill Johnson’s Restaurants v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731 (1983) (frivolous filings are not protected by the First Amendment)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard for state-court adjudications on the merits)
- Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99 (1991) (state court decision on the merits reviewed under §2254(d) framework)