United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNTTS-STINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF
petition of Michael Jordan for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, IYC 15-05-0163,
in which he was found guilty of possession of a cellular
phone. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr.
Jordan's habeas petition must be denied.
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of credit time,
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004),
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); Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d
841, 845 (7th Cir. 2011); 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
17, 2015, Sergeant Tomaw issued a Report of Conduct charging
Mr. Jordan with possession of a cellular device in violation
of Code A-121. Dkt. 7-1, p.1. The Report of Conduct states:
On 5-16-15 at approx. 3:50 pm I Sgt D. Tomaw responded to a
first responders call in Central N-Unit made by Officer A.
Denbo. Once I arrived at the location Offender Jordan,
Michael #200319 N-20U was already placed in mechanical
restraints, and was being escorted out to HSU. I asked the
officer what was the situation[.] Officer Denbo stated that
he attempted to perform a pat search on Offender Jordan, as
he was getting ready to perform the pat search right outside
of N-20 cell door, Offender Jordan turned away and started to
run. The officer also stated that the offender ran into the
cell next to his in N-21 and shut the door behind him locking
the door, and began to push to button to flush the toilet in
the cell. The officer unlocked the door and opened the door
and gave a verbal command to turn around and cuff up, which
he complied with the order. I Sgt. Tomaw walked into N-21
cell to search the area [to] make sure no contraband was
present. Once I began my search I noticed a light right in
front of me underneath the chair. I reached down [and]
grabbed the article which was [a] 1 Samsung Galaxy S-3 cell
phone, I immediately placed the article in my left cargo
pocket and finished the search only to find a cell phone
charger. I then walked down to RSH where the offender was, to
question him about the article found, the offender there
stated to Sgt P. Rutan and I that it was his cellular device.
The offender was then given a notice of confiscation which he
signed for and was notified he would receive a conduct report
for a 121-A.
Dkt. 7-1, p.1.
other officers submitted witness statements in support of the
Conduct Report. Sergeant Rutan stated:
5/16/2015 at approximately 4:45 pm, I asked offender Jordan,
Michael DOC # 200319 out of N2-204 if the Samsung cell phone
confiscated from Sergeant D Tomaw was his. Offender Jordan
stated that it was his cell phone.
Dkt. 7-1, p. 4.
Officer Denbo stated:
On 05/16/2015 at approximately 3:50 p.m. I, Officer A. Denbo
attempted to conduct a pat search on two offenders in front
of the door of Central N-20 cell door. As I started to pat
search Offender Jordan, Michael #200319 N2-20U the offender
began to mess with his gray sweat pants, the offender then
turned an[d] took off running. The offender ran into N-21
cell and he then shut the door causing it to lock. I
immediately called for First Responders via the radio. I,
Officer Denbo unlocked and opened the door and ordered the
offender to turn ...