United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
petition of Ramar Daniels for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
CIC 16-08-0060. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Daniels's habeas petition must be
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).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
29, 2016, Officer Stafford issued a Report of Conduct to
Daniels for a violation of Code B-213, threatening. The
Report of Conduct stated:
On July 29, 2016, [a]t approximately 1:00 P.M. it was
determined after reviewing the formal Grievance Appeal Form
submitted by Offender 104542 DANIELS, RAMAR that the said
formal Grievance did contain statements that were an attempt
of communicating to another person a plan to physically harm,
harass or intimidate that person or someone else. Offender
DANIELS did write in the body of his formal Grievance Appeal
several inappropriate statements in an attempt to intimidate
the staff within this office. Offender DANIELS stated that he
knew very well that we understood what he was communicating
in this grievance, yet we were acting as if we did not. The
offender goes on to state that “I hate you
people” and that “If I saw any of y'all being
murdered, robbed, raped, or anything other bad thing I would
not lift a toe to help none of you devils!” Daniels
continues with stating [sic] “I hope Y'all and
Y'all [sic] kids die a slow painful death from some kind
of sickness and if I get hurt there I'm suing Y'all,
now act like you don't understand that!” Daniels
closed the appeal stating “You can write that up if you
like cause I know that's all you people want to do so go
right ahead!” Communicating to another person a plan to
physically harm, harass or intimidate that person or someone
else is prohibited in the body of a Grievance or Grievance
Appeal by policy unless being used as a direct quote relevant
to the situation. Offender DANIELS clearly violated the Adult
Disciplinary policy by making such statements. Based on the
statements made by Offender DANIELS and policy I am confident
that the Offender did violate code 213B of the Adult
Disciplinary Policy. End Report.
is defined by Code B-213, in part, as “[c]ommunicating
to another person a plan to physically harm, harass or
intimidate that person or someone else.” IDOC Adult
Disciplinary Process, Appendix 1: Offenses, at 5,
last visited Aug. 17, 2017.
was notified of the offense on August 2, 2016. Daniels sought
assistance of a lay advocate. Daniels requested physical
evidence in the form of his written grievance, which was
approved, and the definition of a threat, which was denied
because it was not physical evidence.
Disciplinary Hearing was held on August 12, 2016. Daniels
Feel like I should not have gone [sic] that for attempting to
grievance. Stafford always writes me up. That was supposed to
go to Central. Not addressed to him. 2nd he says I only
attempted to threaten/intimidate staff, but writes me up for
threatening. I feel like it is not [illegible] threatening,
at best vulgarity.
Hearing Officer found Daniels guilty of threatening in
violation of Code B-213 after considering the conduct report,
a copy of grievance, and the offender statement. The
recommended and approved sanctions imposed included loss of
privileges, disciplinary segregation, and 60 days of lost
credit time. The Hearing Officer imposed the ...