United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
petition of Ramon Fox for a writ of habeas corpus challenges
a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC
16-01-0275. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr.
Fox'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); 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 27, 2016, Investigator P. Prulhiere wrote a Report of
Conduct in case IYC 16-01-0275 charging Mr. Fox with
violation of state law, I.C. 35-42-2-1.5, aggravated battery.
The Conduct Report states:
As a result of an investigation completed on January 15,
2016, there is sufficient evidence to charge Offender Fox
with a violation of State Law IC 35-42-2-1.5 (1) aggravated
battery, a level 3 felony.
Investigation Report states:
On December 18, 2015 at approximately 5:50 am (Ref: incident
report filed with same date), Officer R. Thomas was advised
by an offender in Housing Unit South F Unit that an offender
was injured and needed medical care. This offender's
condition indicated that he had been assaulted. From this
point on, this offender will be referred to as the victim.
The victim had injuries to his eyes, face, torso and arms
that were bleeding and bruised. The victim also had wounds
consistent with having been stabbed with a spike type weapon.
Supervisory staff attempted to question the victim about his
condition, but due to incoherent behavior and speech, no
accurate information was obtained. The victim was evaluated
by Plainfield Correctional Facility medical staff and it was
determined that the victim needed to be taken to an Emergency
Room for treatment.
Upon discovery of the victim's condition, Housing Unit
South was placed on Lockdown status. Investigator Feldkamp
and Lieutenant Kent began a systemic process of interviewing
Offenders assigned to Housing Unit South Dorm, F Unit. Leads
were gradually acquired to aid in the process of reviewing
closed circuit surveillance video. Information received from
unit interviews provided a possible location and time of the
victim's assault, between 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm on December
17, 2015 near or at bed location F4-8L or F4-9L. I,
Investigator Prulhiere, began a systematic process of
reviewing the unit video and did find activity occurring near
the location that was provided. After observing this activity
(the activity did appear to be an active assault), I
attempted to locate the victim on unit video. At
approximately 6:54 pm, I observed the victim near his
assigned bunk moving in a normal manner. I observed the
victim walk to the row of bunks into the aisle between rows
F3 and F4 stopping between beds F4-10 and F4-11. At
approximately 7:01 pm, the victim walked to the space between
F4-8/F4-9 and sat down. The victim remained there until the
observed time of the assault which was found to be
approximately 7:33 pm. At approximately 7:06 pm, Housing Unit
South began their recreation movement to the facility gym.
During this time, it was found in the review of surveillance
video, that four offenders from Housing Unit South G Unit
evaded security and entered into Housing Unit South F Unit.
Three identified suspects and Offender Ramon Fox 932844
entered F unit and blended into the unit with other
offenders. (All of the suspects and victim are named in case
number 16-IYC-0007. A key for the names is included
separately in the case file). As time approached 7:30 pm,
these four (4) offenders began to assume what appeared to be
preplanned positions in proximity to the victim. Suspect 4,
from the middle camera's perspective went to a position
that was just to the left of the bed area/latrine hallway
entrance door and waited. Suspect 1 went to the victim's
current located standing at the opening between beds F4-8 and
F4-9 directly in front of the victim. Offender Fox, suspect
2, stood directly in the middle camera's view with
Suspect 3 speaking to an F Unit Offender. At approximately
7:33 pm, suspect 2 and suspect 3 proceed to the area where
the victim was currently located.
Suspect 4, moved in behind Offender Fox, suspect 2 and
suspect 3 which placed the three of them with suspect 1 in
the area with the victim. Using video surveillance, I
observed that Offender Fox, suspect 2, was the first
aggressor to move in and attack the victim. From
approximately 7:33pm consistently through 7:39 pm the assault
barrage from these four offenders was made on the victim. The
assault was contained to the space between F4-8L and F4-9L,
included F4-9L and merged into the space between F4-9L and
Interviews were conducted with all four suspects and the
victim. These interviews yielded confirmation that all of the
suspects identified on unit video were active participants in
the incident. All of these suspects struck the victim with
closed fists, kicked or held the victim while the others
struck or kicked the victim. Upon a more clear review of the
video, using this information, at approximately 7:38:40 I
observed Suspect 4, begin a highly active kicking barrage on
the victim that continued for approximately 30 seconds. As a
result of this ...