United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
petition of Troy Shields for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
JCU 15-08-0015. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Shields' 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).
brings the current action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging a prison disciplinary conviction for class B-247
solicitation of unauthorized personal information after a
hearing that took place at the Edinburgh Correctional
The Disciplinary Proceeding
August 16, 2015, Correctional Officer Young issued a Report
of Conduct charging Shields with solicitation of unauthorized
personal information in violation of Code B-247. The Report
of Conduct states:
[Ineligible] Incident Offender Shields Troy DOC #145960
ask[ed] me C/O Young if I would get him a p.o. box so he
could write me[.] I told [him do] not ask again[. O]n 8-15-15
I Ofc Young was posted in C- Dorm when app[roached] by
Offender Shields Troy ask[ed] again about p.o. box which time
again I said no[. O]n 8-16-15 I told Sergeant Behmlander
about the issue.
was notified of the charge the same day when he was served
with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary
Hearing. The Screening Officer noted that Shields did not
want to call any witnesses or request any evidence and that
Shields decided to plead guilty to the offense.
disciplinary hearing was completed the same day with the
Screening Officer serving as the Hearing Officer because
Shields pled guilty and waived hearing notice. The Hearing
Officer noted that Shields stated that he “was
sorry.” After Shields pled guilty, the Hearing Officer
found that Shields violated Code B-247. The sanctions
included a written reprimand, the deprivation of 60 days of
earned credit time, and the demotion from credit class I to
class II. The Hearing Officer imposed the sanctions because
of the seriousness of the offense and the degree to which the
violation disrupted or endangered the security of the
filed an appeal to the Facility Head, which was denied.
Shields then appealed to the Final Review Authority, who
denied the appeal on September 28, 2015.
Proposed Grounds for Relief
raises three issues in his petition. First, he argues that he
is entitled to relief because his conduct report was issued
on an old state form that had been revised. Shields states
that because this form was used, a shift supervisor did not
review or sign off on the report. Shields states that had a