United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. MOODY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Thrash, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP
16-01-104) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found
him guilty of Security Threat Group/Unauthorized
Organizational Activity in violation of B-208. (DE # 1 at 1.)
As a result, Thrash was sanctioned with the loss of 30 days
earned credit time and was demoted from Class 1 to Class 2.
(Id.) While Thrash lists four grounds in his
petition challenging the finding of guilt, his petition
merely presents different ways of arguing that there was
insufficient evidence on which to find him guilty.
Ground One, Thrash argues that there was insufficient
evidence because he was not given the opportunity to
personally review evidence that another offender was able to
review. (DE # 1 at 2.) In Ground Two, he argues that he
should not have been found guilty because he does not belong
to a gang and does not have any gang tattoos. (Id.)
In Ground Three, Thrash asserts that listening and dancing to
rap music does not mean that he is a gang member.
(Id.) Finally, in Ground Four, Thrash claims that he
should have been able to personally review the video that
served as the basis of his discipline. (Id. at 3.)
assertions to the contrary, the DHO had sufficient evidence
on which to find Thrash guilty. “[T]he 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
court finds that the DHO had sufficient evidence on which to
find Thrash guilty of the charged offense of Security Threat
Group/Unauthorized Organizational Activity. Indiana
Department of Correction (IDOC) policy B-208 prohibits
“giving security threat group or unauthorized
organizational signs . . . .” Disciplinary Code for
Adult Offenders, Appendix I.
Here, the DHO reviewed confidential photos and videos before
reaching a decision. (DE # 1-1 at 4.) This evidence revealed
Thrash “showing hand signs along with the other
[inmates] of a Security Threat Group nature.”
(Id. at 6.) The DHO relied on these photos and
videos in determining that Thrash was guilty. (Id.
at 4.) Thrash argues that the absence of gang tattoos
demonstrates he did not belong to a gang. (DE # 1 at 2.)
However, it is not the court's place to weigh the
evidence when there is sufficient evidence in the record (the
showing of hand signs) to support the disciplinary finding.
also takes issue with the fact that the confidential photos
and videos were not shown to him. However, Thrash was not
entitled to review all information relied upon by the DHO.
“[P]rison disciplinary boards are entitled to receive,
and act on, information that is withheld from the prisoner
and the public . . . .” White v. Ind. Parole
Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir. 2001). Because the DHO
viewed and relied on the confidential materials (DE # 1-1 at
4), his due process right to have these materials considered
was satisfied. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
had sufficient evidence on which to find Thrash guilty.
Therefore, Thrash's petition is denied.
Thrash wants to appeal this decision, he does not need a
certificate of appealability because he is challenging a
prison disciplinary proceeding. See Evans v. Circuit
Court, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009). However, he
may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal in
this case could not be taken in good faith.
these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED. The