United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court
petition of Robert White for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
ISR 15-07-108. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
White's habeas petition must be denied.
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
29, 2015, Internal Affairs Officer John Poer wrote a Report
of Conduct in case ISR 15-07-0108, charging White with
offenses A-111 and 113, conspiracy/attempting/aiding or
abetting trafficking. The conduct report referred to a report
of investigation, or incident report, dated July 29, 2015 and
to confidential case file 15-CIC-0020. The report of
On July 16, 2015 members of the Security Threat Groups Maniac
Latin Disciples and Imperial Gangsters assaulted two members
of the Security Threat Group Dirty White Boys in B Unit. On
July 26, 2015, multiple members of the Security Threat Groups
Maniac Latin Disciples and Imperial Gangers assaulted a
member of the Security Threat Group Dirty White Boys in E
unit. The Correctional Industrial Facility was placed on
lockdown and an investigation was conducted. The
investigation determined that the assaults were over a stolen
package of suboxone strips. Further investigation
substantiates that offender Robert White attempted to engage
in trafficking suboxone with his wife Michelle White.
31, 2015, White was notified of the charge of offenses 111
and 113 and served with a copy of the conduct report and
incident report and a copy of the Notice of Disciplinary
Hearing “Screening Report”. White was notified of
his rights and pleaded not guilty. White did not request any
witnesses but did request that the hearing officer review
confidential case file 15-CIC-0020.
August 6, 2015, a disciplinary hearing was held in case ISR
15-07-0108. White pleaded not guilty and provided the
following statement: “Never had my wife do anything
with drugs; say anything about drugs. I did say I lost half
of my numbers. I've never had any drugs. No money.”
[dkt. 6-3]. The hearing officer found White guilty of
offenses 111 and 113. He relied on the staff reports and
confidential case file 15-CIC-0020 in making his
determination. The following sanctions were imposed: written
reprimand, 45 day phone restriction, 180 day disciplinary
segregation, earned credit time deprivation of 180 days, and
a demotion from credit class 1 to credit class 2. The hearing
officer based the sanctions due to the frequency and nature
of the offense and the likely corrective effect of sanctions.
appeals were denied and he filed the present petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
challenges the disciplinary action against him arguing: (1)
the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty finding;
and (2) he was denied witnesses.
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. 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 Mofft 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,