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.

Mosley v. Knight

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

April 25, 2017

COREY S. MOSLEY, Petitioner,
v.
STANLEY KNIGHT, Respondent.

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

          HON. WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE

         The petition of Corey Mosley for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, IYC 16-03-0139, in which he was found guilty of violating a state law (stalking). For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr. Mosley'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 March 17, 2016, Investigator Gaskin issued a Report of Conduct charging Mr. Mosley with violating a state law (stalking) in violation of Class A-100. Dkt. 12-1. The Report of Conduct states:

On the above date and time offender Corey Mosley left work and was in the office of Mrs. Phillips-Coleman during count. During this investigation Mosley admitted to asking Mrs. Phillips-Coleman inappropriate questions. He was instructed to have no contact with Mrs. Phillips-Coleman. On 2-22-2016 Mosley was seen in the school standing in the hallway waiting on Mrs. Phillips-Coleman and walk[ing] with her out of the school. On 2-24-2016, offender Mosley sent a message to Mrs. Phillips-Coleman through another offender. On 3-4-2016 Mosley sent a letter saying “There is not a legitimate ‘no contact' against Alison and I, if they don't want us to have contact then please transfer me.” On 3-14-2016 Mrs. Phillips-Coleman [reported] “that since the windows were opened up in RHU last week, Offender Mosley has taken to yelling at me out the window.” She went on to say last week offender Mosley sent a message to Mrs. Phillips-Coleman through two other offenders. Offender Mosley's action fits the state statute for Stalking. See Report of Investigation

Dkt. 12-1.

         The accompanying Report of Investigation states:

On February 5, 2016 I received a call from a staff member complaining that offender Mosley left his work site at PEN products claiming that he was sick with a severe cold or pneumonia. Staff allowed the inmate to return back to his housing unit under the impression that offender Mosley was going to medical to see about his alleged health issues. At approximately 11:50 AM offender Mosley was in the mental health counselor's office (Mrs. Phillips-Coleman) sitting approximately 6 inches away from her bent over her left leg reading a fashion magazine. Mosley was escorted to RHU for further review. [During] [a]n interview with the female counselor, she admitted that offender Mosley has made some inappropriate comments towards her and asked questions that were in her opinion out of bounds. Mrs. Phillips-Coleman went on to say after speaking with inmate Mosley about his inappropriate behavior his job was changed to PEN products. Mrs. Phillips-Coleman also admitted that Mosley was giving her fashion tips on shoes that he thought would look good for her to purchase. Offender Mosley was interviewed by this office and instructed not to have any further contact with Mrs. Phillips-Coleman during this investigation and that he would be recommended for placement in the therapeutic community for his drug related issues he claims that he was having. On February 22, 2016 a few days after the conversation with this investigator, offender Mosley was seen in the school standing in the blue hallway attempting to hide his face from custody staff while he waited on the mental health counselor Mrs. Phillips-Coleman to leave her classroom. Mosley was observed walking and attempting to hold a conversation with Mrs. Phillips-Coleman. Mosley was escorted to segregation for investigation for the charge of stalking. Mrs. Phillips-Coleman advised this office that the day after offender Mosley was placed in segregation he attempted to contact her through an offender worker assigned to clean in the segregation unit. This office has received several complaints from inmates stating that offender Mosley has attempted to recruit them to send messages to the female counselor on his behalf. With the latest change in weather the storm windows from segregation were removed for better airflow, offender Mosley took this opportunity to yell and try to contact the [sic] Mrs. Phillips-Coleman as she passed by that dorm walking to her office on a daily basis. Custody staff attempted to correct this problem by relocating this offender to a different cell away from the windows by the sidewalk to Mrs. Phillips-Coleman office. The initial report was that offender Mosley had refused to move when he found out that he could no longer communicate or see Mrs. Phillips-Coleman. Offender Mosley's action fits the state statute for Stalking a level 6 felony.

Dkt. 12-2.

         Mr. Mosley was notified of the charge on April 4, 2016, when he was served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). Dkt. 12-3. He pled not guilty. The Screening Officer noted that Mr. Mosley requested a statement from Mrs. Phillips-Coleman asking if she called him out on February 22, 2016 to attend group. He did not request any physical evidence. Id. Mrs. Phillips-Coleman's statement was: “Yes. He was on call-out letter for group & I informed dorm officers on this date that he was allowed to attend group.” Dkt. 12-4.

         The Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on April 5, 2016. Dkt. 12-8. The Hearing Officer noted Mr. Mosley's statement, “This guy has a personal vendetta against me. I did not stalk her. She has written people up for stalking or PREA before. Why wouldn't she write this up?” Id. Relying on the staff reports, statement of the offender, the evidence from the witnesses, and the IA Investigation Report, the Hearing Officer determined that Mr. Mosley had violated Code A-100. Id.

         The sanctions imposed included an inter-facility transfer, 45 days of phone, commissary, and JPay restriction, 180 days of disciplinary segregation, the deprivation of 180 days of earned credit time, and the demotion from credit class I to III. Id. The Hearing Officer imposed the sanctions because of the seriousness, frequency, and nature of the offense, the offender's attitude and demeanor during the hearing, the degree to which the violation disrupted or endangered ...


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.