United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, United States District Court Judge
petition of Grandon Reed for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
WVD 15-10-0134. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Reed'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
October 27, 2015, Investigator McDonald wrote a Conduct
Report charging Mr. Reed with possession of an electronic
device. The Conduct Report states:
On 10-22-15 I reviewed video recordings of Reed in PK, the
video shows that on October 3, 2015 at approximately 5:30 am
Grandon Reed was retrieving a cell phone from his crotch area
and then holding the cell phone in view of the camera.
This investigation was started on 10-19-2015 and concluded
Dkt. No. 10-1 at 1. A Report of Investigation was also
completed and states:
10-19-2015 Informant 15wvc1015#27 told me that Offender
Grandon Reed had a cell phone and that he takes it to work at
PK everyday. On 10-22-2015 I reviewed video of Offender Reed
in the PK area and on 10-03-15 at 5:30 am Offender Reed
removed a cell phone from the crotch area of his clothing.
The video shows Reed with the cell phone in his hand, then
hiding it back in the same area of his clothing.
This investigation was started on 10-19-2015 and concluded on
10-27-2015. Dkt. 10-2 at 1.
Reed was notified of the charge on October 29, 2015, when he
received the Screening Report. He plead not guilty to the
charge. He requested the video evidence of the incident. Mr.
Reed was not provided the video evidence, but a written
summary of the video evidence was prepared. The summary
states that Mr. Reed can be seen retrieving a cellphone from
his jumpsuit, looking at it for a few second, and then
placing it back into his jumpsuit. Dkt. 10-4 at 1.
hearing was held on November 5, 2015. Mr. Reed provided a
written statement that denied the charges. Investigator
McDonald was sworn during the hearing and testified that the
confidential informant used in the case was a reliable source
based on the credibility of past information. Based on Mr.
Reed's statement, the staff reports, the Report of
Investigation, the video summary, and the video footage
itself, the hearing officer found Mr. Reed guilty of
possessing an electronic device. The hearing officer
recommended and approved the following sanctions: ninety-day
earned-credit-time deprivation and a credit class demotion.
Dkt. 10-6 at 1.
Reed appealed to Facility Head and then the IDOC Final
Reviewing Authority, but both of his appeals were denied. He
then brought this petition for a writ of ...