United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
KEVIN C. CRAMER, Petitioner,
STANLEY KNIGHT, Respondent.
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.
The petition of Kevin C. Cramer for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. REF XX-XX-XXXX. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Cramer's habeas petition must be denied.
Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001), without due process. The due process requirement is satisfied with the issuance of advance written notice of the charges, a limited opportunity to present evidence to an impartial decision maker, a written statement articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it, and "some evidence in the record" to support the finding of guilt. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
B. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On March 24, 2013, Warehouse Supervisor Kevin McWilliams wrote a Report of Conduct in Case REF XX-XX-XXXX charging Cramer with unauthorized possession of property. The Report of Conduct states:
On March 20, 2013 @ approximately 1:00pm, I Kevin McWilliams Warehouse Supervisor, in conducting routine audits of commissary and cigarette receipts noticed discrepancies on Resident Kevin Cramer's (DOC #102209) orders. The documents pertaining to Dec. 12, 2012 commissary scan belonging to Res. Cramer appeared to be altered, the product and pricing listed on his signed commissary receipts are not consistent with the information available on his OIS transaction history and do not accurately reflect what should have been received from commissary.
On March 26, 2013, Cramer was notified of the charge of unauthorized possession of property and was served with a copy of the conduct report and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). The screening report notified Cramer of his rights. He pled not guilty. He did not request the assistance of a lay advocate, any witnesses, or physical evidence.
On March 26, 2013, a hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing in REF XX-XX-XXXX. The hearing officer found Cramer guilty of the charge of unauthorized possession of property. In making his decision, the hearing officer relied upon staff reports and supporting documents. The following sanctions were imposed: a written reprimand, an inter-facility transfer, restitution, a suspended 90-day deprivation of earned credit time, and the imposition of a previously suspended demotion from credit class I to credit class II. These sanctions were imposed because of the seriousness and frequency and nature of the offense, the offender's attitude and demeanor during the hearing, and the likelihood of the sanction having a corrective effect on the offender's future behavior.
Cramer appealed this disciplinary proceeding through the administrative process without success. He now seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that his due process rights were denied.
Cramer asserts the following claims: 1) there was no proof by a preponderance of the evidence to show that Cramer ever had possession of the property at issue; and 2) several Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC") policies were violated in the disciplinary process.
Cramer's first claim challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He argues that he had no access to a duplicating machine, there was no evidence of his signature at commissary with his thumb print, and there were no witnesses stating that he committed the offense. He also asserts that the finding of his guilt must be by a preponderance of the evidence.
Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556. The "some evidence" evidentiary standard in this type of case is much more lenient than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "by a preponderance." See Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002) (hearing officer in prison disciplinary case "need not show culpability beyond a reasonable doubt or credit exculpatory evidence."). The "some evidence" standard requires "only that the decision not be arbitrary or without support in the record." McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). "In reviewing a decision for some evidence, ' courts are not required to conduct an examination of the entire record, ...