Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rich v. Brown

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

August 8, 2017

SEAN P. RICH, Petitioner,
v.
DICK BROWN Superintendent, Respondent.

          ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

         The petition of Sean Rich for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. WVE 17-01-0016. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Rich's habeas petition must be denied.

         A. Overview

         Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits, see Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), or of credit-earning class, see 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). See also 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).

         B. The Disciplinary Proceeding

         On January 5, 2017, Officer Huston wrote a Conduct Report charging Mr. Rich with unauthorized possession of property in violation of Code B-215. The Conduct Report states:

On 1-5-17 at approximately 7 a.m. I, c/o J. Huston observed offender Sean Rich DOC #995701 who works in North Industry Print Shop enter the North Industry Wire Shop with an unopened package of (100) 4x4 cotton pads taken from the Print Shop and made the attempt to pass to another offender which I intercepted.

Dkt. 12-1 at 1.

         Mr. Rich was notified of the charge on January 9, 2017, when he received the Screening Report. He plead not guilty to the charge and did not request any physical evidence. He requested a lay advocate and Mr. Wehmeyer, his job supervisor, as a witness. Mr. Wehmeyer provided witness statements via two e-mails. In the first he stated, “Yes one of [Mr. Rich's] jobs is a backup supply clerk for the Print Shop[, ] [n]ot the wire shop[.] [H]is mistake was taking them to the wire shop without a Forman permission. Wire shop foreman did not ask for them.” Dkt. 12-5 at 1. And in the second he stated, “We don't use cotton pads in the Wire Shop.” Dkt. 12-6 at 1.

         A hearing was held on January 12, 2017. Mr. Rich stated at the hearing, “It was a mistake - I didn't hear clearly.” Dkt. 12-8 at 1. Based on the Conduct Report, Mr. Rich's statement, the witness statements, a photo of the cotton pads, and the confiscation form regarding the cotton pads, the hearing officer found Mr. Rich guilty of unauthorized possession of property. The sanctions imposed included a thirty-day earned-credit-time deprivation.

         Mr. Rich appealed to Facility Head and the IDOC Final Reviewing Authority, but both of his appeals were denied. He then brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         C. Analysis

         The petitioner raises nine grounds for relief in his habeas petition. The respondent contends that several of the petitioner's claims are unexhausted and thus procedurally defaulted, and that the remaining claims lack merits. The Court will begin with the issue of exhaustion before turning to the merits of the claims that were properly exhausted.

         1. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.