United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Dimas, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging a disciplinary hearing (ISP 16-10-246)
where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty
of sexual conduct in violation of Indiana Department of
Correction (IDOC) Policy B-216. ECF 1 at 1. As a result, he
was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time
and was demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2.
Id. While Dimas identifies three grounds in his
petition, each of these grounds challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence the DHO relied on in finding him guilty.
disciplinary context, “the relevant question is whether
there is any evidence in the record that could support the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
“In reviewing a decision for some evidence, courts are
not required to conduct an examination of the entire record,
independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the
evidence, but only determine whether the prison disciplinary
board's decision to revoke good time credits has some
factual basis.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d
784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).
[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only]
have the support of some evidence in the record. This is a
lenient standard, requiring no more than a modicum of
evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as the
record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the
disciplinary board were without support or otherwise
arbitrary. Although some evidence is not much, it still must
point to the accused's guilt. It is not our province to
assess the comparative weight of the evidence underlying the
disciplinary board's decision.
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000)
(quotation marks, citations, parenthesis, and ellipsis
Conduct Report charged Dimas with violating IDOC B-216. This
rule prohibits prisoners from:
in any of the following:
• Sexual intercourse, as defined in this Administrative
Procedure, with the consent of the other offender
• Making an explicit request, hiring, or coercing
another person to have sexual contact
• Having contact with or performing acts with an animal
that would be sexual intercourse or sexual contact if with
• Clutching, exposing, fondling, or touching the
offender's own intimate parts for the sexual arousal of
the offender or others, whether clothed or unclothed, while
observable by others.
Department of Correction, Adult Disciplinary Process:
The Conduct Report charged Dimas as follows:
During an investigation it was discovered that offender Dimas
#110298 wrote to Charles #985019, four sexually explicit
letters. In one letter Dimas thanked Charles for giving him
“sexual attentions” and taking care of his
physical need. Dimas describes vividly in another letter to
Charles a sexual dream and the sex acts that were performed
on him (Dimas) by Charles.
Dimas admitted to writing the letters to Charles and to
receiving a “blow job” from Charles but claimed
the “blow job” (oral sex) happened in 1998. In
one letter Dimas asked Charles to dispose of all the letters
after he (Charles) reads them ...