United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
Gerhardt, an inmate in the Indiana Department of Correction
(IDOC), petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
prison disciplinary proceeding number CIC 16-11-0024. For the
reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Gerhardt's habeas
petition must be 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
Department of Correction Intelligence Analyst Courtney Foust
issued a conduct report to Mr. Gerhardt on November 2, 2016,
after a conversation he heard while listening to inmate phone
calls. The report charged him with violating section B-220 of
the IDOC's Adult Disciplinary Code, which prohibits
unauthorized financial transactions. The conduct report
On 11/02/2016 at 9:45 AM, I, C. Fouts (Intelligence Analyst)
was listening to Offender Padgett, Dustin #998718 phone call
. . . on 10/30/2016 at 20:30. . . . At 5:37 into the call
Offender Padgett provides the phone number . . . . According
to Facebook this phone number comes back to Offender
Gerhardt, Adam #215056 (7B F2). At 6:10 into the call
Offender Padgett tells his father to “send $150 Walmart
to Walmart to Kasie for AG from Padgett.” In my
training experience, I am confident that Offender Gerhardt is
making an unauthorized financial transaction. Offender
Gerhardt is in clear violation of Code 220.
Dkt. 9-1 (capitalization modified; text alterations added).
Gerhardt was notified of the charge on November 5, 2016, when
he was served with the screening report and received a copy
of the conduct report. He pleaded not guilty and requested a
statement from Offender Padgett as well as the phone record
evidence. Dkt. 9-2.
written statement answered a written question from Mr.
Gerhardt. The question, “Did I ask you to send me
money?” was answered by Padgett, “I at [sic] any
time did not tell my Dad to send money to Adam Gerhardt. I
[sic] another peer gave me his number. It was supposed to be
a phone number that didn't work.” Dkt. 9-3.
disciplinary hearing was held on November 18, 2016. Mr.
Gerhardt's statement was considered:
This was 3 weeks ago and didn't know anything about it
till I went to screening. I have no knowledge of him using my
information. I never called and asked about getting any
money. I don't ever say anything about getting money over
my phone. I would plea [sic] guilty to a business
hearing officer considered Mr. Gerhardt's statement and
the staff report and found Mr. Gerhardt guilty, noting his
reason for the decision was the “proponderence [sic] of
the evidence.” Id. Sanctions ...