Terrell v. Director TDCJ, 9:14-cv-00129

Terrell, a Texas prisoner, was convicted in prison disciplinary case No. 20130333522 for threatening an officer and punished with 45 days cell/commissary restriction, classification demotions, and forfeiture of 90 days good-conduct time.
He filed a §2254 habeas petition challenging the disciplinary conviction, alleging destroyed grievances, a false charge, an inadequate pre-hearing investigation report, and ineffective assistance from his counsel substitute.
The disciplinary offense report quoted Terrell as saying “I will show you what I will do” while advancing toward Officer Burks; the hearing officer relied on that report in finding guilt.
Terrell asserts Officer Burks had threatened him first and that witnesses and law-library attendance were omitted from the investigation report.
Terrell also contends his appointed counsel substitute abandoned him and her replacement had not consulted him before the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Grievances destroyed	Terrell: grievance appeals were lost/destroyed, denying review	State: no constitutional right to have prison grievances processed	Denied relief — loss of grievance processing is not a constitutional violation
False disciplinary charge / insufficiency of evidence	Terrell: charge was false; officer actually threatened him	State: offense report and hearing afforded Wolff protections; report suffices as some evidence	Denied relief — offense report supplied “some evidence”; credibility is for hearing officer
Inadequate investigation report	Terrell: preliminary report omitted witnesses and law-library attendees	State: preliminary report quality is not a Wolff due-process requirement; regulatory violations alone are not constitutional	Denied relief — inadequate report does not amount to constitutional violation
Ineffective assistance of counsel substitute	Terrell: appointed counsel substitute abandoned case / replacement did not consult him	State: inmates have no right to counsel in disciplinary proceedings	Denied relief — no right to counsel, so no ineffective-assistance claim under Sixth Amendment

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (procedural protections required when good-conduct time is at stake)
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (disciplinary findings require only "some evidence")
Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534 (written offense report can satisfy "some evidence" standard)
Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541 (applicability of Wolff to inmates deprived of good-conduct time)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in prison disciplinary proceedings)