United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENGLAND PLAINFIELD - CF PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant - Court Only Marjorie H.
Lawyer-Smith INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
petition of Shawn England for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
REF 16-09-0002. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr.
England'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).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
August 26, 2016, Correctional Officer Rmalia wrote a Report
of Conduct in case REF 16-09-0002 charging Mr. England with a
violation of codes B240/231 aiding or abetting/ intoxicants.
The conduct report states:
On the date of 08/26/2016 at approximately 1015PM I Ofc.
Rmalia was conducting a security check on unit 1. During my
round, I observed Resident England, Shawn M 252005 and three
other residents gathered inside U1S-1. The housing unit
smelled of smoke and all four residents appeared to be
intoxicated. Resident England was immediately escorted to the
shift office for a urinalysis test. During my follow up
search of housing unit U1S-1, I found a small plastic bag
containing a green leafy substance, underneath a pillow that
occupied the housing area bed. The plastic bag was
confiscated and secured in evidence locker #5.
September 8, 2016, Mr. England 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 and requested to call James Russell, #863550,
Jacob Campbell, #245611, and Michael Christian, #945441 as
witnesses. Dkts. 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, and 9-6. Offender James
Russell provided a statement that they were his intoxicants.
Dkt. 9-3. Offenders Campbell and Christian denied having
possession of or knowing of the presence of intoxicants.
Dkts. 9-4, 9-5. Mr. England requested as evidence
“anything showing he had contact with drug.” Dkt.
hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on September
19, 2016. Mr. England provided the following statement:
“I didn't know anything about what was in his
room.” The hearing officer found Mr. England guilty of
the charge aiding or abetting intoxicants. In making this
determination, the hearing officer considered the staff
reports and the offender's statement. Based on the
hearing officer's recommendations the following sanctions
were imposed: a written reprimand; a 45-day deprivation of
earned credit time and a demotion from credit class 2 to
credit class 3. The hearing officer recommended the sanctions
because of seriousness of the violation, the offender's
attitude and demeanor during the hearing, and the likelihood
of the sanctions having a corrective effect on the
offender's future behavior. Dkt. 9-7.
England appealed the disciplinary proceeding through the
administrative process. His appeals were denied. He now seeks
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that his due
process rights were violated.
England brings the following claims for habeas relief: 1)
Offender James Russell admitted the intoxicants were his and
that the intoxicants were not found in Mr. ...