United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Philip
P. Simon Judge United States District Court
Joseph
Bell, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing in which
a Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of attempted
trafficking in violation of Indiana Department of Correction
rules A-111 and A-113. The finding of guilt led to the loss
of 120 days earned credit time and a demotion in credit
class. ECF 5-6.
Bell
argues that there was insufficient evidence to have found 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). There only needs to be
“some evidence” to support the decision. Indeed,
courts have gone so far as to say that “even meager
proof will suffice. . . “ Webb v. Anderson,
224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks,
citations, parenthesis, and ellipsis omitted).
Bell
was charged with a violation of IDOC rule A-111 which is
defined as “[a]ttempting or aiding and abetting with
another to commit any Class A offense.” Indiana
Department of Correction, Adult Disciplinary Process:
Appendix I.
http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101APPENDIXI-OFFENSES6-1-2015(1).pdf.
He was also charged with a violation of IDOC rule A-113 which
is defined as “[e]ngaging in trafficking (as defined in
IC 35-44.1-3-5) with anyone who is not an offender residing
in the same facility.” Id. Indiana law defines
“trafficking” as follows:
(b) A person who, without the prior authorization of the
person in charge of a penal facility or juvenile facility,
knowingly or intentionally:
(1) delivers, or carries into the penal facility or juvenile
facility with intent to deliver, an article to an inmate or
child of the facility;
(2) carries, or receives with intent to carry out of the
penal facility or juvenile facility, an article from an
inmate or child of the facility; or
(3) delivers, or carries to a worksite with the intent to
deliver, alcoholic beverages to an inmate or child of a jail
work crew or community work crew…
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-5 (West).
Let's
start with the Conduct Report, which charged Bell with the
following:
Lamonica Radford was stopped by police and admitted she was
Conspiring to traffic narcotics “synthetic
marijuana” in the ISF prison by dropping in the Lieber
Park so a Labor line worker could smuggle it in to Offenders
Durant and Joseph Bell[.]
Radford is believed credible because she implicated herself
in a crime. Offender Pitchord Bell is
in violation of ADP code 111/113 Violation of Law/Trafficking
with an Inmate.
ECF 5-1
(amendment in original). Here's what the Report of
Investigation says:
Lamonica Radford admitted to police that she was conspiring
with Offenders Michael Durant #966317, Joseph Bell #121260 to
smuggle narcotics “synthetic marijuana” into the
ISP prison. Radford is believed credible because she
implicated herself in a crime. Durant was interviewed and
admitted to me that Offender David Hunter # 194461 was the
Offender on the Labor Line that was supposed to ...