Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bott v. Superintendent

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

November 2, 2017

DAVID BOTT, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

          ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by David Bott (“Mr. Bott”) which challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC 17-01-0061. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Bott's Petition must be denied.

         I. OVERVIEW

         Prisoners 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).

         II. THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

         On January 19, 2017, Investigator Feldkamp issued a Report of Conduct to Bott for a violation of Code B-240/213, conspiracy/threatening. The Report of Conduct stated:

On 1/19/2017 at approximately 10:30 am I Investigator C. Feldkamp reviewed offender Bott, David #104979 GTL phone records. What I discovered in those phone calls is offender Bott conspiring to commit illegal and unauthorized actions in accordance with IDOC policy. In one of those communications offender Bott openly states that he is going to “get him” when he gets out of prison (meaning that he is going to assault an individual) and is considered a threat of harm which supports the 213B Threatening charge. Bott also ask [sic] for an unauthorized financial transaction to purchase an item from another offender. Obtaining money in any manner other than the authorized process is a 220B Unauthorized Financial Transaction as well as offender Bott [sic] statement that he is going to purchase an item from another offender is a 233B violation for Giving and Receiving. The terminology used by offender Bott is also the type of communication discovered in the past as being deceptive and that the communication is actually utilizing code words. Regardless of what is being communicated in the conversation offender Bott has violated three Class B IDOC rules and this writer is seeking aggravated circumstances in the event that this offender is found guilty and sanctioned. End of Report.

         Dkt. [2]-1. Mr. Bott was charged with Code B-240 conspiracy and Code B-213 Threatening. Code B-213 is defined as:

         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.

         IDOC Adult Disciplinary Process, Appendix 1: Offenses, at 5, http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101APPENDIXI-OFFENSES6-1-2015(1).pdf. Code B-240 is defined as: “Attempting to commit any Class B offense; aiding commanding, inducing, counseling, procuring or conspiring with another person to commit any Class B offense” Id. at 7.

         Mr. Bott was provided notice of the offense on January 23, 2017. He did not request any witnesses, but did request telephone ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.