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.

Mosey v. Knight

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

October 11, 2017

NOAH MOSEY, Petitioner,
v.
STAN KNIGHT [1], Respondent.

          ORDER

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE

         Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Final Judgment

         The petition of Noah Mosey for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. NCF 16-11-0132. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mosey's habeas petition must be denied.

         A. Overview

         Prisoners 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).

         B. The Disciplinary Proceeding

         On November 15, 2016, Officer Williams wrote a Report of Conduct in case NCF 16-11-0132 charging Mosey with possession or use of a controlled substance. On November 6, 2016, Mosey's urine was tested for drugs and the preliminary test was positive for opiates and methamphetamine. The urine sample was then sent to an outside laboratory for further testing, which was positive for opiates. As the Report of Conduct states:

The following conduct report has been issued to Offender Noah Mosey #239254 for Possession or Use of a Controlled Substance, as defined in the Adult Disciplinary Policy. On 11/6/16, Mosey submitted his own urine for a full 8 panel drug screen. The Chain of Custody was followed and the sealed specimen was sent to Alere Toxicology Services, Inc., for a full screening, with a confirming test performed. Lab reports received on 11/12/16, clearly indicate the presence of Morphine in the urine of Offender Mosey, #239254. Internal Affairs was made aware of the results on 11/15/16. Based upon the results from Alere Toxicology Services, Inc., Offender Mosey, #239254 did violate code B-202, of the Adult Disciplinary Policy. Offender informed of conduct.

         On November 17, 2016, Mosey was notified of the charge of possession or use of a controlled substance and served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing “Screening Report.” Mosey was notified of his rights, pled not guilty, and requested the appointment of a lay advocate. He did not request any witnesses or physical evidence.

         The hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing in NCF 16-11-0132 on November 22, 2016, and found Mosey guilty of the charge of possession or use of a controlled substance. In making this determination, the hearing officer considered the offender's statements, staff reports, the chain of custody form, the preliminary results form, and the test report. The hearing officer recommended and approved the following sanctions: 30 days lost commissary and phone privileges, restitution, a 90 day deprivation of earned credit time, and a demotion from credit class II to credit class III.

         Mosey's appeals were denied and he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

         C. Analysis

         In support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Mosey argues that the urine sample was not witnessed by a second staff member as required by Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) policy, he was not offered the opportunity to sign the drug screen results form in violation of IDOC policy, that the chain of custody form was not signed, that the time frame for testing and returning the test results was not possible, that the facility did not determine that the urine same was a result of authorized medication, and the preliminary report indicated ...


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.