United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court
petition of Anthony Wright for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
ISR 14-12-0076. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Anthony Wright's habeas petition must be
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); Piggie v.
Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v.
Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
December 17, 2014, Sergeant Reed wrote a conduct report that
charged Wright with possession of a weapon. The conduct
On the above date and time I Sgt. J. Reed and Ofc. D. Hartle
were conducting a shake down on Offender Wright, Anthony DOC#
953497. While searching the interior lip of the cell door, I
confiscated a 11 inch round metal weapon. The metal weapon
was confiscated and taken to the D.O. photos attached.
December 18, 2014, Wright was notified of the charge and
served with the conduct report and the notice of disciplinary
hearing “screening report.” Wright was notified
of his rights, pled not guilty, and requested the appointment
of a lay advocate. Wright requested a more specific witness
statement from Sergeant Reed, and requested a video and
photographs as physical evidence.
hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on December
22, 2014. The hearing officer found Wright guilty of the
charge of possession of a weapon.
making the guilty determination, the hearing officer relied
on the offender's statement, staff reports, evidence from
witnesses, video, and photographic evidence. The following
sanctions were approved: written reprimand, a one-month loss
of phone privileges, one year of disciplinary segregation,
one year earned credit time deprivation, and a demotion from
credit class 1 to credit class 2. The sanctions were imposed
because of the seriousness of the offense, the frequency and
nature of the offense, and the degree to which the violation
disrupted and/or endangered the security of the facility.
appeals through the administrative process were denied. He
now seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing
that his due process rights were violated.
support of his claim for habeas relief, Wright alleges the
following grounds: 1) the evidence was not sufficient to
support a guilty finding; 2) the video evidence does not show
the correctional officers searching the door; 3) Wright was
denied evidence; ...