United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
JIMMY D. JONES, Petitioner,
RICHARD BROWN Superintendent, Respondent.
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
L. Miller, Jr. United States District Judge.
petition of Jimmy D. Jones for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, WVD 16-02-0102,
in which he was found guilty of possessing counterfeit
documents. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr.
Jones' habeas petition must be denied.
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of credit time,
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004),
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); Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d
841, 845 (7th Cir. 2011); 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
February 18, 2016, Sergeant Lantrip issued a Report of
Conduct charging Mr. Jones with possession of counterfeit
documents in violation of Code B-230. The Report of Conduct
On 2/18/16 at approx. 830am I Sgt. Lantrip was observing CAB
on Offender Jones, Jimmy #891782 where he was claiming that
he had a set of Wahl clippers on his inve[n]tory sheet. I
then contacted classification and C/O M. Christy to obtain
the original copies. On the copies from classification and
C/O M. Christy there was no Wahl clippers. Offender Jones had
a copy that was dated the same day and same officer where
Wahl clippers have been added.
Jones was notified of the charge on February 23, 2016, when
he was served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). The Screening
Officer noted that Mr. Jones did not request any witness
statements and that he requested as evidence the original of
the document he allegedly gave to the CAB. Dkt. 8-2.
hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on February
25, 2016. Dkt. 8-13. The hearing officer noted Mr. Jones'
statement, “I did not present a forged document. Where
is the original that I allegedly gave them. If I did, they
should have confiscated it.” Id. Relying on
the staff reports, the statement of the offender, evidence
from witnesses, copies of the documents, and the confidential
mental health statement, the hearing officer determined that
Mr. Jones had violated Code B-230. Id. The sanctions
imposed included a written reprimand, one month of lost phone
privileges, 30 days of disciplinary segregation (suspended),
and the deprivation of 60 days of earned credit time.
Jones' appeals were denied. This habeas action followed.
Jones argues that his due process rights were violated during
the disciplinary proceeding because: 1) the evidence was
insufficient to find him guilty because Sgt. Lantrip provided
him with a copy and not the original document requested; and
2) the hearing officer also denied his request for the
original allegedly forged document.
inmate “facing disciplinary proceedings should be
allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in
his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly
hazardous to institutional safety or correctional
goals.” Wolff v. McDonell, 418 U.S. at 566.
Here, Mr. Jones alleges that he was improperly denied
evidence he requested. Due process requires “prison
officials to disclose all material exculpatory evidence,
” unless that evidence “would unduly threaten
institutional concerns.” Jones v. Cross, 637
F.3d at 847 (internal quotation omitted). In the prison
disciplinary context, the purpose of the rule requiring
disclosure of exculpatory evidence is “to insure ...