Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barker v. Brown

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

February 5, 2015

NORMAN BARKER, Petitioner,
v.
RICHARD BROWN, Respondent.

ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS C

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

The petition of Norman Barker for a writ of habeas corpus challenges prison disciplinary proceedings identified as WVD XX-XX-XXXX and WVD XX-XX-XXXX. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Barker's habeas petition must be denied.

Discussion

A. Standard

Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), 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).

B. The Disciplinary Hearings

On January 17, 2013, Officer Griffith wrote a Report of Conduct in case WVD XX-XX-XXXX charging Barker with possession of intoxicants. The Report of Conduct states:

On 1/17/13 at approx. 0835, I, c/o M. Griffith, while conducting a shakedown of cell 415, did find about 3 gallons of what appears and smells like Hooch.' The intoxicants were taken to evidence locker where photos were taken. Hooch' destroyed. Conduct Report was written.

On January 25, 2013, Barker was notified of the charge of possession of intoxicants and served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing "Screening Report." Barker was notified of his rights, pled not guilty and did not request the appointment of a lay advocate. He did not request any witnesses or physical evidence. The hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing in WVD XX-XX-XXXX on January 28, 2013. At the hearing Barker changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, and the hearing officer found Barker guilty of the charge of possession of intoxicants. In making this determination, the hearing officer considered the offender's statements, staff reports, evidence from witnesses, confiscation slips, and photographs of the alcohol. The hearing officer recommended and approved the following sanctions: a written reprimand, one month lost commissary and phone privileges, a suspended 45 day deprivation of earned credit time, and imposition of a previously suspended sanction which resulted in a demotion from credit class I to credit class II.

Barker appealed to the Facility Head on February 12, 2013. The Facility Head denied the appeal on April 15, 2013. Barker's appeal to the Appeal Review Officer was denied on May 14, 2013.

On January 28, 2013, Officer Hightshoe wrote a Report of Conduct in case WVD XX-XX-XXXX charging Barker with making or possession of intoxicants. The Report of Conduct states:

On 1-28-13 at approx. 6:45 am I c/o Hightshoe was working the right wing of mhu. At the time I was conducting a security check, and smelled a strong odor of alcohol. Upon entering the cell I found that what appeared to be an orange liquid substance in a black pastic bag inside a[n] ice cooler, in cell #415. Offender Barker Norman is as[s]igned to mhu cell #415.

On February 1, 2013, Barker was notified of the charge of possession of intoxicants and served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing "Screening Report". Barker was notified of his rights, pled not guilty and requested the appointment of a lay advocate. He did not request any witnesses, but requested a copy of the policy that "states the liquid does not have to be tested for alcohol content".

The hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing in WVD XX-XX-XXXX on February 5, 2013. At the hearing, the hearing officer found Barker guilty of the charge of possession of intoxicants. In making this determination, the hearing officer considered the offender's statements, staff reports, and evidence from witnesses). The hearing officer recommended and approved the following sanctions: a written reprimand, one month lost commissary and phone privileges, a suspended three months of disciplinary segregation, imposition of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.