United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge.
petition of Luis Munoz-Antemate, for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, NCF 16-05-0051,
in which he was found guilty of possessing a controlled
substance. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr.
Munoz-Antemate's habeas petition must be
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
4, 2016, Chief of Security R. Davis wrote a Report of Conduct
in case NCF 16-05-0051 charging Mr. Munoz-Antemate with
possession of a controlled substance. The Report of Conduct
On 5/4/16 at approximately 0940 hours, I, Chief of Security
R. Davis, searched a property box beside bunk I1-218.
Offender Luis Munoz-Antemate #256585 claimed ownership of the
property box. I found an empty aspirin bottle that contained
a brown powdery substance. The substance was tested by
Internal Affairs and was confirmed as being 22 grams of
methamphetamine. Offender Antemate was advised by me that he
would be receiving a conduct report for possession of a
6, 2016, Mr. Munoz-Antemate was notified of the charge of
possession of a controlled substance and served with the
Report of Conduct (Exhibit A) and the Notice of Disciplinary
Hearing “Screening Report.” Mr. Munoz-Antemate
was notified of his rights but refused to participate in the
remainder of the screening process. Dkt. 13-3. Mr.
Munoz-Antemate was assigned a lay advocate, who was present
at his hearing.
hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing in NCF
16-05-0051 on May 9, 2016, and found Mr. Munoz-Antemate
guilty of the charge of possession of a controlled substance.
Dkt. 13-1. Mr. Munoz-Antemate's statement at the hearing
was that the substance “was popsicle stick powder. I do
not know why it tested positive. It was in my box but it was
not drugs.” In making this determination, the hearing
officer considered the offender's statements, staff
reports, and the photographic evidence. Dkt. 13-4. The
hearing officer imposed the following sanctions: time served
in disciplinary segregation, 30 days lost commissary and
phone privileges, a 90 day deprivation of earned credit time,
and a demotion from credit class B to credit class C.
Id. The hearing officer imposed these sanctions
because of the seriousness and nature of the offense and the
degree to which the violation disrupted and endangered the
security of the facility. Mr. Munoz-Antemate's appeals
Munoz-Antemate argues that his due process rights were
violated during the disciplinary proceeding. His claims are
that: 1) he did not understand his rights because there was
no translator; and 2) he was not given evidence of the test
performed on the substance.
Munoz-Antemate first argues that he did not understand his
rights because he was not given a Spanish translator.
Statements in the record from the Screening Officer and the
hearing officer indicate that Mr. Munoz-Antemate spoke in
English while being screened and during the hearing and that
Mr. Munoz-Antemate also had a lay advocate. The Court will
not rule on this issue, however, because the second issue is
meritorious and renders the first issue moot.
Munoz-Antemate's second claim is that he was never given
a copy of the test that was allegedly performed on the
substance. He insists that the substance was sawdust. The
Court has reviewed the evidence to which the respondent cites
in support of the finding that the substance was
methamphetamine: the Report of Conduct (dkt. 13-2) and the
photograph attached to the Report of Disciplinary Hearing
(dkt. 13-4, p. 2). The photograph shows the aspirin bottle,
brownish powder in a baggie on a scale showing
“22” on the scale, and a document titled
“evidence record.” The respondent argues that the
Report of Conduct and the photographic evidence “of the
drug test, ” Return, dkt 13-1, p. 7, is sufficient
evidence to show that the substance tested positive for
methamphetamine. Nowhere in the photograph, however, is a
report showing the results of any test. There is no such
report anywhere in the record. While the reporting officer
states in the ...