United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., United States Magistrate Judge
Baker, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (BTC
14-12-336) where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found
him guilty of threatening another offender in violation of
Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) policy B-213/B-240.
ECF 21-5 at 1. As a result, Baker was demoted from Credit
Class I to Credit Class II.
argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because
the DHO did not have sufficient evidence to find him guilty.
In the 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
An inmate violates IDOC B-213 by:
Engaging in any of the following:
1. Communicating to another person a plan to physically harm,
harass or intimidate that person or someone else.
2. Communicating a plan to cause damage to or loss of that
person's or another person's property.
3. Communicating a plan to intentionally make an accusation
that he/she knows is untrue or false.
Indiana Department of Correction, Adult Disciplinary Process,
Appendix I: Offenses.
The Conduct Report charged Baker as follows:
On December 17, 2014 Mr. J. Hendershot opened a white
envelope addressed to him and marked from Albert Baker
#900522. During the reading of this letter Offender Baker is
trying to explain he never threatened Offender Peters
#203488. I will note I have an investigation 14-BCT-234 that
Offender Baker has threaten (sic) Peters because Peters is
having contact with Baker's daughter Brittany Blair.
These action (sic) caused Offender Peters to request PC
status. On 12/17/14 I received recorded phone calls made by
Offender Peters, and on December 14, 2014 Peters made a phone
call to Brittany Blair telling her that he really requested
PC because he snitched on JP, and that he made all that up
about her dad (Albert Baker). Peters also tells Britteny
(sic) in this call that people listen to his calls. Peters
also tells Brittany, All that I wrote in the letters he sent
to her are true. Brittany toward then end (sic) of their
conversation tells Peters that now she understands.
I believe with the evidence in case 14-BTC-234 along with
Peters phone call to Brittany, is 51% for the preponderance
of evidence needed to believe Offender Albert Baker is
attempting to intimidate Offender Peters to lye (sic) about
what really happened so Brittany will have contact with Baker
again and to have the ...