United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
petition of Shayne Thompson for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
ISR 16-10-0002. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Thompson's habeas petition must be
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
October 1, 2016, Corrections Officer T. Shultz, wrote a
conduct report charging Thompson with B-204, sexual contact
against staff. The conduct report states:
On 10/1/2016 at approximately 11:35 a.m., I Officer T. Shultz
was coming around the back side of ranges 5A and 6A, as me
and offender Thompson, Shayne #201199 were coming around to
the 5A range, he decided to grab my butt and ask me when he
will get his hugs and kisses. I quickly brought my hand
around and smacked his hand and yelled at him to stop.
Offender Thompson then went into his cell without further
October 13, 2016, Thompson was notified of the charge of
sexual contact and was served with a copy of the screening
report. Thompson was notified of his rights and pleaded not
guilty. He requested a lay advocate, and a lay advocate was
later appointed. Thompson requested to call a witness,
offender Terry Thomas. Thompson also requested a “video
review-Both angles back of 6A front of 5A.”
one postponement due to staff shortages, and a second
postponement to conduct the requested video review, a
disciplinary hearing was held on October 26, 2016. Thompson
pleaded not guilty and provided the following statement:
“simple fact that if something like that happened then
she would have called a signal right away. They (the
officer's [sic]) would have came [sic] and got me
immediately and locked me up.”
disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) conducted a
video review as Thompson requested, but no video of the
incident was recorded. The DHO found Thompson guilty of
sexual contact against staff (204). The DHO's reasons for
decision was: “preponderance of evidence.” Due to
the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the offense,
Thompson's attitude and demeanor during the hearing, the
degree to which the violation disrupted / endangered security
of the facility, and the likelihood of the sanctions having a
corrective effect on Thompson's behavior, the DHO imposed
the following sanctions: a written reprimand, 30 days'
loss of phone, commissary, and kiosk privileges, 3 months of
disciplinary segregation, 90 days' lost earned credit
time, and a demotion from credit class 1 to credit class 2.
administrative appeals were denied and he filed this petition
for a writ of habeas corpus.
challenges the disciplinary action against him arguing that
there was no physical evidence to support the finding and
that the video does not support the conviction. Thompson has
also submitted a request for discovery.