Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Howell v. Superintendent

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

April 10, 2017

KEVIN HOWELL, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM C. LEE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Kevin Howell, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (ISO 15-10-21) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of the A-100 offense of Violation of Law on October 21, 2015. ECF 1 at 1. The Conduct Report charged Howell with possession of a synthetic drug lookalike. ECF 1-1 at 1. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 60 days earned credit time. Id. Howell lists three grounds in support of his petition. ECF 1 at 2.

         In Ground One, Howell argues that there is insufficient evidence upon which to find him guilty because there is “no test for lookalike substance.” Id. However, “the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). “In reviewing a decision for some evidence, courts are not required to conduct an examination of the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the evidence, but only determine whether the prison disciplinary board's decision to revoke good time credits has some factual basis.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).

[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only] have the support of some evidence in the record. This is a lenient standard, requiring no more than a modicum of evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary board were without support or otherwise arbitrary. Although some evidence is not much, it still must point to the accused's guilt. It is not our province to assess the comparative weight of the evidence underlying the disciplinary board's decision.

Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks, citations, parenthesis, and ellipsis omitted). A Conduct Report alone can be sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786.

         Howell is not entitled to relief on the basis of Ground One because there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary finding. The Conduct Report explains that on October 11, 2015, Officer Lain “confiscated a leafy plant like material from offender Howell, # 173273.” ECF 1-1 at 1. Officer Lain then “retrieved the confiscated item from the evidence locker” and employed the “Sirchie Nark II Presumptive Field Test # 23.” Id. The report concludes, “[t]he testing resulted in a negative finding. However, the packaging and appearance shows that the item is a lookalike synthetic drug. Possession of said substance is a violation of Indiana Criminal Law as pursuant to IC 35-48-4-11.5.” Id.

         The Indiana Code states:

Sec. 11.5. (a) As used in this section, "synthetic drug lookalike substance" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-31.5-2-321.5(a)(2).
(b) A person who possesses a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance commits possession of a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance, a Class B infraction.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally possesses a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance commits possession of a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this section or under section 10.5 of this chapter.

IC 35-48-4-11.5. Indiana Code 35-31.5-2-321.5(a)(2) defines a “synthetic drug lookalike substance” as: “[a] substance, other than a synthetic drug: (A) that a person knows or should have known was intended to be consumed; and (B) the consumption of which the person knows or should have known to be intended to cause intoxication.”

         Based on the evidence identified in the Conduct Report, it was not arbitrary to have found Howell guilty. According to Howell's own statements during the disciplinary hearing, Officer Lain instructed Howell to get out of the shower for a shakedown. ECF 1-1 at 2. During the shakedown, Officer Lain discovered “1 packet made of paper containing a brown leafy substance, and 5 paper packets containing a green leafy substance…” ECF 1-1 at 7. While these substances tested negative for narcotics, Officer Lain concluded that the packaging and appearance of the leafy substances appeared to be a synthetic drug lookalike.

         Based on this evidence, the DHO concluded that Howell was guilty of the charged infraction. Id. In finding against Howell the DHO stated, “I believe the [staff and confiscating officer's] reports to be true and that the items were found inside his property (shorts). Offender guilty of A 100.” Id. This evidence, considered and relied upon by the DHO, constitutes “some evidence” ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.