United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JASON C. LANE, Petitioner,
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
petition of Jason C. Lane for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
NCF 16-12-0045. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Lane's habeas petition must be denied.
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits,
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004)
(per curiam), 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); 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
December 8, 2016, Case Manager (“CM”) Page issued
a Report of Conduct to Lane for a violation of Code B-247,
possession of unauthorized personal information. Code B-247
is defined as:
Possessing or soliciting unauthorized personal information
regarding another offender, ex-offender, victim/witness,
potential victim, or current or former staff person,
including but not limited to personnel files, offender
packets, medical or mental health records, photographs,
Social Security Numbers, home addresses, financial
information, or telephone numbers, except as
authorized by a court order or as approved in writing by the
Adult Disciplinary Process, Appendix 1: Offenses, at 8
(emphasis added), available at,
Report of Conduct stated:
On 12/7/16, CM Page was informed by Offender Davis that he
believed Offender Lane was accessing his Jpay and phone
account. He reported that his sister had received multiple
calls and Jpays from the offender asking her to put money on
his (CO Lane's) account. Offender Lane reported[ly] told
the sister Davis had been robbed of everything but his shoes
and the money would be safer on Lane's acct. CM Page did
call Davis' sister (Emily) and confirmed that she had
been receiving calls and requests for money. She has asked
him to please stop calling. While CM Page was waiting on
phone records to finish report she was informed that Lane had
attempted to call Emily again last night but the call did not
go through. Offender was informed that he would be receiving
Dkt. 10-1. Lane received notice of the offense on December 9,
2016. Lane sought assistance of a lay advocate, and three
witnesses including Officer Issac, Offender King, and
Offender Davis. He did not request physical evidence. Officer
Issac refused to comment for Lane. Offender King stated that
he had no knowledge of the matter. Offender Davis, the
victim, stated that: “Jason was a good helper, I never
asked him to call my sister to put money on my account[, ] he
did this all on his own. I would hate to see him lose time
over this knowing that he is a short timer.” Dkt. 10-6.
Disciplinary Hearing was held on December 13, 2016. Lane
stated that: “I am guilty of having the info, I have
been helping him for a year and a half.” The Hearing
Officer entered a guilty plea and found Lane guilty of
possession of unauthorized personal information, in violation
of Code B-247 after considering the reports, phone evidence,
Jpay letters, offender, and witness statements. The
recommended and approved sanctions imposed included loss of
privileges and 90 days of lost credit time. A demotion in
credit class was recommended, but suspended. The Hearing
Officer imposed the sanctions because of the seriousness of
the offense, nature of the conduct, and degree to which the
violation disrupted/endangered the facility.
appealed to Facility Head and the IDOC Final Reviewing
Authority, both of which were denied. He then brought this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.