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 Frank Wemer for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
WCC 14-06-0872. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Wemer'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
30, 2014, Internal Affairs Supervisor Whelan issued a Report
of Conduct charging Wemer with violating a state law (gang
activity) in violation of Class A-100. The Report of Conduct
On 4/23/2014 there was an assault on offender Taulbee,
903125. After reviewing the camera at exactly 8:38:10 pm
offender Wemer, Frank 119650 was seen running full speed and
tackling offender Taulbee from behind as four other inmates
were assaulting offender Taulbee. After Wemer tackled Taulbee
the other four inmates continued to collectively hit him
while on the ground, until offender Taulbee was able to get
away from the aggressors. There is zero tolerance for STG
gang Activity, and this behavior is against state law.
was notified of the charge on July 3, 2014, when he was
served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). The Screening
Officer noted that Wemer did not request any witnesses and
requested the video and photos for evidence.
Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on July 24,
2014. The Hearing Officer noted Wemer's statement,
“There was 3 pictures. Some people got into it. I'm
not telling on no body. I made sure nothing happened to him.
I didn't touch him or nothing. It was 5 black people and
1 white dude. I was horseplaying with the dude but then it
turned into them fighting. I'm accepting what I did. I
did not jump no body. I tackled him horseplaying with him. I
did try to get them off the man.” Relying on the
Conduct Report, offender statement, and the IA Investigation
Report, the Hearing Officer determined that Wemer had
violated Code A-100. The Hearing Officer imposed the sanction
because of the seriousness, frequency, and nature of the
offense, the offender's attitude and demeanor during the
hearing, the degree to which the violation disrupted or
endangered the security of the facility, and the likelihood
of the sanction having a corrective effect of the
offender's future behavior.
appeals were denied and he filed the present petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
challenges the disciplinary action against him arguing that
the procedure for identifying him as a Security Threat Group
(“STG”) member was not followed, that the Hearing
Report was completed improperly, and that the evidence
against him was insufficient. The respondent contends that
because Wemer did not raise the first two grounds in his
administrative appeals, those arguments are procedurally
defaulted and that the evidence against Wemer was sufficient.