Smith, Eric D. v. Wilson, Bill , 196 F. App'x 430 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted September 6, 2006
    Decided September 14, 2006
    Before
    Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    ERIC D. SMITH,                                                 Appeal from the United States
    Petitioner-Appellant,                                   District Court for the Northern
    District of Indiana, South Bend
    No.    06-1389                        v.                       Division.
    BILL WILSON,                                                   No. 04 C 501
    Respondent-Appellee.                                     Allen Sharp, Judge.
    Order
    We remanded this case last year so that the district judge could resolve a single question:
    whether Eric Smith had refused to attend a prison disciplinary hearing (as the respondent
    maintains) or had never been notified of the hearing (as Smith maintains). See Smith v. Jordan,
    No. 05-1186 (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2005) (unpublished order). A magistrate judge held an evidentiary
    hearing and concluded that Smith is lying. The magistrate believed the contrary statement of a
    guard who testified that he had visited Smith in his cell to extend an opportunity to attend the
    hearing, and that Smith had refused point blank. The prison's contemporaneous log book reflects
    that decision. After de novo consideration, the district judge agreed with the magistrate judge.
    Smith now argues that he was entitled to a jury trial on this factual dispute, but the
    contention is frivolous. The court is the sole factfinder in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
    No. 06-1389                                                                       Page 2
    §2254. See §2254(e). A collateral attack is not an action "at law" to which the seventh amendment
    applies. Smith also maintains that the court should have subpoenaed additional witnesses, but the
    magistrate did not abuse his discretion in rejecting this request. The proposed testimony would
    have been marginally relevant, if relevant at all. Smith's remaining arguments are addressed to
    issues that were resolved adversely to him on the first appeal and need not be reconsidered.
    Affirmed
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1389

Citation Numbers: 196 F. App'x 430

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/14/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023