United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District
petition of Miguel Roberson for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in IYC
16-01-0209. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr.
Roberson's habeas petition must be
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of credit time,
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004),
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). A violation of state law will not
support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Holman
v. Gilmore, 126 F.3d 876, 884 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
January 20, 2016, Investigator Prulhiere wrote a Report of
Conduct charging Mr.
with possession or use of a controlled substance. The conduct
On December 29, 2015, at approximately 10:24 AM, Offender
Miguel Roberson 979116 submitted his own urine for testing to
Sergeant B. Fugate for a random drug screening. The submitted
urine was sent to Redwood Toxicology Laboratory for testing.
Offender Roberson's urine was tested for controlled
substances using the LC/MS/MS-Liquid Chromatography Tandem
Mass. Spectrometry method. As a result of the test, Offender
Roberson's urine tested positive for Amphetamines and
Methamphetamine. Due to the testing being positive for
controlled substances, Offender Roberson is receiving this
Dkt. 6-1; dkt. 6-2.
January 30, 2016, Mr. Roberson was notified of the charge and
was given a copy of the conduct report and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing “Screening Report.” He was
notified of his rights and pled not guilty. He requested a
lay advocate but did not request to call any witnesses.
Roberson requested the lab results as physical evidence. Dkt.
hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on February
26, 2016, and found Mr. Roberson guilty of possession or use
of a controlled substance. In making this determination, the
hearing officer considered the staff reports, the
offender's statement and the toxicology report. Based on
the hearing officer's recommendations the following
sanctions were imposed: a 30-day loss of commissary,
telephone, and J Pay privileges, restitution in the amount of
$48.08 which represents the cost of the toxicology test, an
earned credit time deprivation of 90 days, and a demotion
from credit class 2 to credit class 3. The hearing officer
recommended the sanctions because of seriousness of the
offense, the frequency and nature of the offense, the
offender's attitude and demeanor during the hearing, and
the degree to which the violation disrupted/endangered the
security of the facility. Dkt. 6-5.
Roberson's appeals were denied. He now seeks relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that his due
process rights were violated.