United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
William T. Lawrence, Judge
petition of Clayton McDermitt for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
ISF16-02-0315. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
McDermitt's habeas petition must be denied.
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits,
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004)
(per curiam), 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); 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
February 4, 2016, Correctional Officer T. White wrote a
Report of Conduct that charged McDermitt with Attempting an
Unauthorized Financial Transaction. The Conduct Report
On 2-4-2016 at approximately 1020 hrs. while listening to
recorded calls, I heard the following conversation.
On 2-3-2016 at approximately 1250 hrs Offender Clayton
McDermitt DOC #157037 called 260 316 3549 from offender phone
17NA-2 on a prepaid call and was talking to a female. At
approximately 0634 into conversation offender McDermitt said,
“Listen 945.” She replied, “Hold on.”
At approximately 0652 into call he stated “945
0394.” She replied “Ok.” At approx.. 0700
into call he said “That's[sic] cell phone number.
Give her 100 gonna get it on commissary list she aint on my
visit list she gonna figure how to put it on my books.”
Dkt. 80-1 (Exhibit A).
of Correction rules establish limits on the sources of funds
to inmates. Offenders may only receive funds from immediate
family or friends who are on the offender's Visitors'
February 17, 2016, McDermitt was notified of the disciplinary
charge when he was served with the Conduct Report and the
Notice of Disciplinary Hearing. McDermitt was notified of his
rights, pleaded not guilty, and requested a lay advocate, who
was provided. McDermitt did not request any witnesses or
hearing officer conducted the disciplinary hearing in
ISF16-02-0315 on February 19, 2016. McDermitt's comment
was “just trying to get some Comm[issary].” The
hearing officer found McDermitt guilty of the charge of
Attempting an Unauthorized Financial Transaction. In making
this determination, the hearing officer considered staff
reports and McDermitt's statement, and evidence from
witnesses. The reason for the decision was “H/O
believes conduct report to be true and factual, finds
preponderance of evidence.” The sanctions included an
earned credit time deprivation of 30 days, and imposition of
suspended sanctions from a previous case, which were a 90-day
loss of earned credit time and demotion from Credit Class 1
to Credit Class 2. The hearing officer imposed the sanctions
because of the seriousness of the offense and the degree to
which the violation disrupted/endangered the security of the
filed an appeal to the Facility Head on February 21, 2016.
The Facility Head denied the appeal on March 8, 2016.
McDermitt appealed to the Final Reviewing Authority, who
denied his appeal by letter dated ...