United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
JIMMY D. JONES, Petitioner,
RICHARD BROWN Superintendent, Respondent.
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
petition of Jimmy D. Jones for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
WVE 14-03-0075. He was found guilty of Class B Possession of
Electronic Device, Unauthorized Alteration. For the reasons
explained in this Entry, Jones's habeas petition must be
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
March 17, 2014, Lt. C. Nicholson issued a Report of Conduct
to Jones, for a violation of Code B-207 possession of an
electronic device and unauthorized alteration. The Report of
On 3/14/2014 at approximately 0900A.M., I, Lt. C. Nicholson
inspected a flat screen T.V. with the serial number
#FOC3DCOPD. This T.V. is assigned to Offender Jones, Jimmy
#891782. The T.V. has an extra two wires that run from inside
the T.V. to outside the T.V. I took the T.V. to Internal
Affairs and K. Allen confirmed that from his past experiences
that this might have the ability to charge an electronic
device (cell phone).
Dkt. 8-1. Officer Allen did confirm that “[i]n my past
experiences this is done by offenders to have the ability to
charge an electronic device (Cell Phone).” Dkt. 8-2.
Nicholson provided Jones with notice of the offense on March
18, 2014, and Jones waived his 24-hour notice. It appears
that while Jones considered seeking a statement from Officer
Allen, specifically asking “Mr. Allen how do you
determine that these wires are used to charge something (cell
phone), ” this request is crossed out and
“changed his mind” is written in the
corresponding field. Dkt. 8-4. Jones did not request any
submitted a written “Prisoner's Statement”
dated March 18, 2014, that challenged the conduct report and
requested that the wires coming from the T.V. be tested for
an electric charge. Dkt. 8-5.
The Disciplinary Hearing was held on March 18, 2014. Jones
They took my T.V. before. I beat that write up. Now, when I
am supposed to get it back, they took it again because they
said it “might” charge a cell phone, ...