United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the court on the consent of both parties.
ECF 13. Dante Paulk, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging WCC 15-10-13, a prison disciplinary
proceeding where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found
him guilty of attempting to traffic contraband in violation
of Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) policy A-111 and
A-113. ECF 2 at 1. As a result, he was sanctioned with the
loss of 30 days earned credit time. Id. While Paulk
lists three grounds in his petition, his claims all challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence used to find him guilty.
imposition of prison discipline will be upheld so long as
there is some evidence to support the finding.
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
“[T]he relevant question is whether there is any
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion
reached by the disciplinary board.” Id.
“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).
The 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
A-111 prohibits an inmate from “[a]ttempting or
conspiring or aiding and abetting with another to commit any
Class A offense.” Adult Disciplinary Process, Appendix
IDOC A-113 prohibits an inmate from “[e]ngaging in
trafficking (as defined in IC 35-44.1-3-5) with anyone who is
not an offender residing in the same facility.”
Id. Indiana law 35-44.1-3-5 defines the offense of
(b) A person who, without the prior authorization of the
person in charge of a penal facility or juvenile facility,
knowingly or intentionally:
(1) delivers, or carries into the penal facility or juvenile
facility with intent to deliver, an article to an inmate or
child of the facility;
(2) carries, or receives with intent to carry out of the
penal facility or juvenile facility, an article from an
inmate or child of the facility; or
(3) delivers, or carries to a worksite with the intent to
deliver, alcoholic beverages to an inmate or child of a jail
work crew or community work crew…
IC § 35-44.1-3-5 (West).
the Conduct Report charged Paulk as follows:
On the above date and time Offender Paulk, Dante # 159315 was
at work at DNR Tree Nursery when after using the restroom,
DNR Officer Braun, Beulah checked the restroom and found 3
bags of brown leafy substance, 116 oz bag of brown leafy
substance in the area Offender D. Paulk was at, plus Offender
D. Paulk was the only worker at the site.
ECF 8-1 at 1. The property manager of the nursery submitted
the following memorandum ...