United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
William T. Lawrence, Judge
petition of Justin Schuley for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
WVD 16-03-0050. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Schuley'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 7, 2016, Correctional Officer F. Allen issued a Report
of Conduct charging Schuley with assault with a weapon in
violation of Code A-102. The Report of Conduct states:
On 3-7-16 at approx. 8:04 pm I, C/O F. Allen was assigned to
north yard when a 10-10 was called out for EHU core area. I
was first to respond and witnessed Offender Schuley, Justin
#238991 striking Offender Griffin, Michael #213400 with what
appeared to be a lock attached to a string. I gave clear
verbal orders for Offender Schuley to stop and he did not
comply. I administered a one second burst of OC to the target
area of Offender Schuley and he complied with my orders to
stop. Both offenders were placed in mechanical restraints
with no further incident.
was notified of the charge on March 9, 2016, when he was
served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). The Screening
Officer noted that Schuley did not request any witnesses or
Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on March 10,
2016. The Hearing Officer noted Schuley's statement,
“That sounds about right.” Relying on the staff
reports, statement of the offender, confiscation slip, and
photos, the Hearing Officer determined that Schuley had
violated Code A-102.
sanctions imposed included a written reprimand, one month of
phone restriction, one year of disciplinary segregation,
restitution for medical bills of the victim, the deprivation
of 54 days of earned credit time, and the demotion from
credit class I to III. The Hearing Officer imposed the
sanction because of the seriousness and nature of the offense
and the degree to which the violation disrupted or endangered
the security of the facility.
appeals were denied and he filed the present petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
argues that his due process rights were violated because, in
addition to the disciplinary sanction, outside charges for
battery were also brought against him. The respondent argues
that because Schuley did not raise this issue in his appeals,
it is procedurally defaulted. The respondent further argues
that to the extent Schuley's challenge is based on an
alleged violation of Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC)
policy, such a violation does not amount to a deprivation of
due process. Finally, the respondent argues that the filing
of outside charges as well as disciplinary charges does ...