United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court
Distribution: Southern District of Indiana
petition of Anthony Williams for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as NCF
16-03-0158. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Williams'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
March 21, 2016, SOMM Counselor C. Bradley wrote a Conduct
Report charging Mr. Williams with refusal of a mandatory
program. The Conduct Report states:
Offender Williams, Anthony DOC 254689 consented to
participate in the SOMM program on 12/7/15. As part of the
consent process, Offender Williams signed the INSOMM
Treatment Participation Agreement which details the internal
progressive discipline process that will be taken should an
offender not adhere to treatment expectations. Offender
Williams was informed that he was not adhering to treatment
expectations based on his overall demeanor in group and
unwillingness to discuss his treatment issues. As a result,
Offender Williams was placed on the progressive discipline
system. He was placed on Level One of the disciplinary system
on 2/2/16 due to his negativity in the group and only
minimally participating. He was placed on Level Two of the
disciplinary system on 2/29/16 due to not completing the
homework assigned that he had 2 weeks to complete. He was
placed on Level Three of the disciplinary system on 3/9/16
due to not coming out with the group call outs, missing group
and temporarily suspended from group per the disciplinary
system. When Offender Williams returned to group on 3/21/16
he continued to refuse to adhere to group expectations as
evidenced by stating that he did not feel it was necessary to
address why he was on the level system and denying major
aspects of his instant offense. He was then placed on Level
Four of the disciplinary system which includes a code 116A
conduct report[.] Offender Williams was verbally informed he
would be receiving a Code 116A conduct report based upon
failure to adhere to program expectations.
Dkt. No. 13-1 at 1.
Williams was notified of the charge on March 23, 2016, when
he received the Screening Report. He plead not guilty to the
charge, requested a lay advocate, but did not request any
witnesses or physical evidence.
hearing was held on March 24, 2016. Mr. Williams stated at
the hearing, “It's not about me not minimally
participating. Some of her teachings throw me off.”
Dkt. 13-5 at 1. Based on Mr. Williams's statement, the
staff reports, and Mr. Williams's signed consent form to
participate in the program, the hearing officer found Mr.
Williams guilty of refusing a mandatory program. The hearing
officer recommended and approved sanctions including a
one-hundred-fifty-six day earned-credit-time deprivation and
a credit-class demotion.
Williams 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 habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Williams raises two claims in his habeas petition. First, he
argues that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt.
Second, he maintains that he was denied an impartial
decisionmaker. The respondent contends that the latter claim
is procedurally defaulted, while the former lacks merits. Mr.
Williams did not file a reply brief.