United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
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.
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
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
of Mr. Vasquez's injuries were included with the report.
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.
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.
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.
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