United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
JANE MAGNTTS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
petition of Gregory Sims for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
ISF 16-09-0464. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Sim'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
September 26, 2016, CPO Wire issued a Report of Conduct
charging Sims with possession of a controlled substance in
violation of Code B-202. The Report of Conduct states,
“On September 23, 2016 I, D. Wire received the
confirmation of the urinalysis drug screen report on Offender
Gregory Sims DOC #979154. The test results states [sic] that
Offender Sims tested positive for Buprenorphine and
Norbuprenorphine.” Sims was notified of the charge on
September 29, 2016, when he was served with the Report of
Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Screening
Report). The Screening Officer noted that Sims requested
Sergeant Bricker as a witness and the video for evidence.
When asked by Sims if the urine was left “laying
around”, Sergeant Bricker responded:
After urine drug screen was done I used a reditest substance
abuse screening device to test for suboxone. It was a
positive read. All tests were done with the offender present.
Seal was placed on bottle secured by offender. After being
told of results offender Sims refused to sign. Urine sample
placed in secure designated area by IA with all proper
When asked by Sims if he left the urine out, Sergeant Bricker
responded, “No, after test and secured by the security
seal urine sample results do not change after initial
outcome. Urine moved to secure area. Date of urine sample
taken was 9-7-16.” The summary of the video of the
event provides, “On 9-6-16 at approx. 10:26:26 in the
strip cell offender Sims, Gregory ##979154 can be see[n]
taking a urinalysis test. At 10:27:16 Sgt. Bricker can be
seen sealing the container used for the u[ri]nalysis.”
Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on October
21, 2016. The Hearing Officer noted Sims' comments that
the hearing was “[o]ut of time frame” and that he
“didn't get video I requested.” Relying on
the staff reports, the statement of the offender, and the
physical evidence, the Hearing Officer determined that Sims
had violated Code B-202. The sanctions imposed included a
written reprimand, a loss of phone privileges, a demotion
from credit class I to II, and the imposition of a suspended
sentence from case ICF16-08-0331.
appeals were denied and he filed the present petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
challenges his disciplinary conviction arguing that the
report was written beyond the time frame set forth in The
Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders, that the hearing was
held beyond the time frame, that the sanctions were not
rehabilitative in nature, and that he was denied physical
of Department ...