United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, District Judge.
The petition of Cameron Mayfield for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF XX-XX-XXXX. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mayfield'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) (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 Hearing
On November 25, 2013, Officer Darrin Chaney wrote a Report of Conduct in case ISF-13-11-0294 charging Mayfield with conspiracy/attempting/aiding or abetting trafficking. The Conduct Report states:
On the above date and time Mail Room staff forwarded an in-coming letter to the Internal Affairs office for review. The correspondence was addressed to offender Mayfield, Cameron #178522 and did contain (10) ten Suboxone strips hidden inside a greeting card.
Offender Mayfield is in violation of ADP code 111/113 conspiracy to traffic and is in violation of I.C. 35-44.1-3-5 state law trafficking with an inmate/conspiracy.
On December 2, 2013, Mayfield was notified of the charge of attempted trafficking and served with the notice of disciplinary hearing ("Screening Report"). He was notified of his rights and pled not guilty, requesting 24 hours' notice of the hearing. He requested to call Officer Chaney as a witness, and asked that the substance be presented to him as physical evidence.
On December 4, 2012, a hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing and found Mayfield guilty of the charge. Officer Grogg served as Lawson's lay advocate. During the hearing, Mayfield stated that he "[didn't] know who that person is, my child's mother would do something like this to set me up. I have no family support." At the conclusion of the proceeding, the hearing officer relied upon the staff reports, Mayfield's statement, evidence from Internal Affairs and physical evidence, and found Mayfield guilty of the disciplinary offense. At the end of the hearing and based upon the hearing officer's recommendations, the following sanctions were imposed: a written reprimand; thirty days of lost telephone privileges; a 60-day deprivation of earned credit time; and a demotion of credit class. Mayfield's appeals were denied.
In support of his claim for habeas relief, Mayfield alleges the following grounds: 1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his disciplinary charge; and 2) that he was denied the right to present evidence and witnesses; and 3) ...