United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
petition of Leonard McQuay for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
WVD 17-01-0013. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
McQuay’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
December 30, 2016, Sergeant A. Bourlard issued a Report of
Conduct charging McQuay with refusing to submit to testing in
violation of Code B-203. The Report of Conduct states:
On December 29, 2016 at approximately 11:45 pm, I, Sgt A.
Bourlard informed Offender McQuay, Leonard #874304 that he
needed to submit to a urine test. I then escorted Offender
McQuay to the bathroom in the core of LHU. When arriving to
the bathroom, Offender McQuay stated he had just went to the
bathroom and didn’t have to go. I gave Offender McQuay
8 ounces of water to drink at approximately 12:15 am. At
approximately 12:47 am Offender McQuay submitted a specimen.
It was an inadequate specimen due to the temper[a]ture not
reaching 90 degrees. I informed Offender McQuay he needed to
submit another specimen. He said he couldn’t because he
needed to defecate. I told him he was going to receive a
conduct report for refusing a urine test for providing an
was notified of the charge on January 3, 2017, when he was
served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). The Screening
Officer noted that McQuay requested Officer Ewers as a
witness and a copy of the urinalysis paperwork as evidence.
Officer Ewers submitted the following statement:
On 12/29/16, at approx. 11:45 P.M. I C/O D. Ewers assisted
Sgt. A. Bourlard in escorting Offender McQuay, Leonard
#874304 to the core area of LHU for urine testing. At approx.
12:47 A.M. I did witness Offender McQuay submit a urine
specimen. He placed the specimen on the table in the
conference room of LHU. Sgt. Bourlard then read the results.
Sgt. Bourlard informed Offender McQuay that the specimen
provided was not at the required temperature for adequate
testing. McQuay was then told he must submit another
specimen, to which he replied “I cannot go again, I
really need to [defecate].” At that time, Sgt. Bourlard
informed McQuay that his reply would be taken as a refusal
and would receive a conduct report for not supplying an
adequate sample. Offender McQuay then returned to his cell.
Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on January
13, 2017. The Hearing Officer noted that McQuay stated,
“I’ve never been tested at night time. I just
pissed right before they got there. The Sgt. told me if I
couldn’t provide enough sample, that I would be tested
in the morning. Can I plead guilty to a C-347.” Based
on the staff reports, the statement of the offender, and the
evidence from witnesses, the Hearing Officer determined that
McQuay had violated Code B-203. The sanctions imposed
included a written reprimand, a phone restriction,
disciplinary segregation, the deprivation of 90 days of
earned credit time, and the loss of one credit class.
filed an appeal to the Facility Head, who denied it on March
9, 2017. McQuay then appealed to the Final Review Authority,
who denied the appeal on April 5, 2017.
challenges the disciplinary action against him arguing that
he was denied requested evidence, including Officer
Ewers’s statement and a photo of him providing a urine
specimen. McQuay also challenges the decision of the hearing
officer not to allow him to view the photos used as evidence.
In his reply in support of his habeas petition, he further
argues that the evidence was insufficient because he was not
given enough time to attempt to provide a second specimen.