United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JAMES E. MANLEY, Petitioner,
KEITH BUTTS, Respondent.
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
petition of James E. Manley for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as
prison disciplinary case number NCF 16-05-0252. For the
reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Manley's habeas
petition is 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 by 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
26, 2016, Disciplinary Review Officer S. Byers wrote a
conduct report charging Mr. Manley with being a habitual
conduct rule violator contrary to IDOC Adult Disciplinary
Code section B-200. The conduct report provides:
On the above date and time, while processing conduct reports,
I, S. Byers became aware that Offender Manley, James #900778
is in violation of a code 200 Habitual Rule Violator. He has
been found or plead[ed] guilty to five related or unrelated
class C conduct offenses in a period of six months or less
according to OIS. Offender has been made aware of this
Dkt. 10-1 (capitalization modified).
Manley was notified of the charge on the same day it was
written, May 26, 2016, when he received the screening report
and a copy of the conduct report. Dkt. 10-3. He pleaded not
guilty to the charge, did not request witnesses or evidence,
and did not request a lay advocate. Id. However, a
lay advocate was later appointed for him. Dkt. 10-4.
hearing was held on June 1, 2016. Dkt. 10-5. Mr. Manley again
pleaded not guilty and provided a written statement. The
statement, essentially his only defense to the habitual
offender charge, reads:
Pursuant to the U.S. and Indiana Constitutional prohibition
on double jeopardy, I request this charge be dismissed. I
have already been sanctioned on each of the Reports of
Conduct and therefore they cannot be used to support a new
charge of an habitual rule violator. Because IDOC policy does
not allow for a conduct violation to be enhanced, any attempt
to charge as an habitual rule violator would be impermissible
attempt at double jeopardy.
Additionally, IDOC policy states that the prior Reports of
Conduct must be unrelated. If you look at the evidence that
was submitted you see two reports for hearings on 5/25/16,
and are therefore related. You also see three on 4/21/16, and
are therefore related. As such I only have three class C
conduct reports that are unrelated by time. I would also note
that the evidence does not state case number for any conduct
hearing officer considered Mr. Manley's statement, the
conduct report, and OIS printouts and found him guilty of
being a habitual offender. Sanctions imposed included the loss of
ninety days earned ...