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.

Vasquez v. Superintendent

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

April 17, 2017

JOSE VASQUEZ, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

          ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         The petition of Jose Vasquez for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, CIC 13-11-0309, in which he was found disorderly conduct. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr. Vasquez's habeas petition must be denied.

         I. Overview

         Prisoners 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).

         II. The Disciplinary Proceeding

         On November 21, 2013, Correctional Officer T. Davis, wrote a conduct report charging Mr. Vasquez with disorderly conduct, offense B-236. The conduct report states:

On 11-21-2013 Offender Vasquez, Jose 975271 20L-3DS was observed by myself, Officer T. Davis, bleeding down his left arm. Offender Vasquez stated to me that he had reopened his self inflicted wound on his left arm by scrapping (sic) the scab off using the metal edge of the bed in 20L-3DS. Offender Vasquez (sic) action disturbed the normal operation of AS and DS operations.

Dkt. 31-1.

         Pictures of Mr. Vasquez's injuries were included with the report.

         On November 26, 2013, Mr. Vasquez was notified of the charge of disorderly conduct (B-236) and served with a copy of the screening report. Dkt. 31-3. Mr. Vasquez was notified of his rights and pleaded not guilty. He requested a lay advocate. He requested Ofc. Davis as a witness and sought a copy of the facility policy for D.S. Id. Ofc. Davis supplied a witness statement: “We have standing orders from our chain of command that stops (sic) normal operations in DS is to be written up as a 236.” Dkt. 31-4.

         After a postponement, a disciplinary hearing was held on December 4, 2013, in case CIC 13-11-0309. At the hearing, Mr. Vasquez pleaded guilty to the charge. Dkt. 31-6. The Hearing Officer found Mr. Vasquez guilty of B-236 disorderly conduct. Id. In making this determination, the Hearing Officer considered staff reports and the statement of the offender. Due to the seriousness of the offense and the frequency/nature of the offense, the Hearing Officer imposed the following sanctions: a written reprimand and 120 days' lost earned credit time. Id.

         The Respondent has no record that Mr. Vasquez appealed his disciplinary conviction in this case, however, the Court ruled on Respondent's second motion to dismiss that Mr. Vasquez did not fail to timely exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 30.

         III. Analysis

         Mr. Vasquez alleges that his due process rights were violated during the disciplinary proceeding. His claims are discerned as: 1) the reporting officer's actions in writing him up were retaliatory and revengeful; and 2) the reporting officer should ...


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.