United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
petition of Brian Eines for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
CIC-16-01-0262. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Eines' 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
January 29, 2016, Correctional Officer Ross issued a Report
of Conduct charging Eines with threatening in violation of
Code B-213. The Report of Conduct states:
On 01/29/2016 at approx. 3:40 am, I, Ofc. A. Ross, was asked
by Offender Brian Eines, DOC #988189, 10B-2B, to go to
medical because his hands and feet were swollen. After
looking at his hands, they did not appear to be swollen. I
told Offender Eines he was not going to medical and to return
to work. At that point, Offender Eines began to become irate
and start to cuss at me. I few minutes later, I entered the
small side of the chow hall to turn on the lights. I noticed
Offender Eines standing in the corner with his arms crossed.
I asked him if he was going to work. He told me, “Fuck
off. Mind your own business.” I asked him again if he
was going to work and if he was not, he was going to be sent
back to the house. Offender Eines continued to cuss at me, at
which point, I told him to turn around and cuff up. Offender
Eines then turned around and reared up as if he was going to
start swinging at me. I then proceeded to call for the yard.
I opened the door to the kitchen and escorted Offender Eines
out. I told Offender Eines to face the wall and put his hands
behind his back and cuff up. Offender Eines complied with all
of my orders. Mechanical restraints were placed on him and
escorted to A-unit.
Dkt. 8-1. Eines was notified of the charge on January 29,
2016, when he was served with the Report of Conduct and the
Notice of Disciplinary Hearing. The Screening Officer noted
that Eines requested the video of the incident. The report of
disciplinary hearing video evidence review states that
allowing the offender to view video recorded evidence would
jeopardize the safety and/or security of the facility. The
video is summarized as follows:
I Officer E. Fonseca reviewed the camera for CIC 16-01-0262.
I observed Officer A. Ross attempting to restrain Offender
Eines, Brian 988189 with mechanical restraints hand cuffs at
03:49:29 am. Offender Eines 988189 then pulls away with his
left arm aggressively swings it towards the Officer, like he
is going to smack him in the face. Offender Eines walks away
from Officer toward the Kitchen side door and walks out of
view of the camera at 3:59:56 am.
Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on February
2, 2016. The Hearing Officer noted Eines' statement that
the “It did not happen how I seen it. I seen his hand
try to grab me. I moved my hand away I told him you don't
have to put your hands on me.” Dkt. 8-4. Considering
the staff report and the physical evidence, the Hearing
Officer determined that Eines violated Code B-213. In doing
so, the Hearing Officer stated, “Offender Eines 988189
was cussing at Officer Ross. He was given a[n] order to cuff
up. Offender Eines 988189 turned around in a[n] aggressive
manner where he was about to hit the officer. Video evidence
of incident.” Id. The sanctions imposed
included a written reprimand, a loss of phone and commissary
privileges, 45 days of disciplinary segregation (suspended),
and the deprivation of 30 days of earned credit time The
Hearing Officer imposed the sanctions because of the
seriousness, frequency, and nature of the offense, the degree
to which a violation disrupted or endangered the security of
the facility, and the likelihood of the sanction having a
corrective effect on the offender's future behavior.
filed an appeal to the Facility Head. The appeal was denied
on February 19, 2016. Eines then appealed to the Final Review
Authority, who denied the appeal on March 11, 2016.