United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Vaughn, an Indiana inmate in the custody of the Indiana
Department of Correction (“IDOC”), petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus challenging prison disciplinary
proceeding number ISR 16-09-0004. For the reasons explained
in this Entry, Mr. Vaughn's habeas petition is
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
Officer B. Grant charged Mr. Vaughn with assault and battery,
a violation of the IDOC's Disciplinary Code for Adult
Offenders, Appendix I, Section A-102, on August 31, 2016.
Officer Grant explained the basis for the charge in a conduct
On the above date and approximate time, I, Ofc. B. Gant, was
conducting my 11:00-11:30 security walk when Ofd. Pruitt,
Dustin #132792 GH 2D-8 stated he had just had feces thrown on
him. At that time I noticed what appeared to be fecal matter
on the floor, wall, and the door to Ofd. Pruitt's cell. I
removed Offender Pruitt from his cell and placed him in a
shower. After returning to the area of the assault I was
advised by another offender on the 2D Range that offender
Vaughn, Bronson #197723 GH 2-D-9 was the one who assaulted
Pruitt with bodily waste. It appears that offender Vaughn
used a styrofoam cup to throw the fecal matter on Pruitt
because after I removed Vaughn from his cell and placed him
in a shakedown booth, I conducted a shakedown of Vaughn's
cell and found four more styrofoam cups full of fecal matter.
Pictures were taken of the cups and the scene.
Vaughn was notified of the charge on September 7, 2016, when
he received the screening report and a copy of the conduct
report. Dkt. 9-4. The charge was amended to possession of a
deadly or dangerous weapon, a violation of Section A-106. Mr.
Vaughn pled not guilty and did not request evidence or
hearing was held on September 8, 2016. Mr. Vaughn told the
hearing officer that the cups of fecal matter were “not
a weapon. I had it in my cell. I told the officer I was going
to gun [sic] down the range if I didn't get the
phone.” Dkt. 9-5. Based on that statement, staff
reports, and an evidence card with a picture of the cups, the
hearing officer found Mr. Vaughn guilty of the amended
charge. Id. The sanctions imposed included ninety
days' earned credit time deprivation.
to the Facility Head and the IDOC Final Reviewing Authority
were unsuccessful. Dkts. 9-6 and 9-7. Mr. Vaughn then brought
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
Vaughn presents two grounds challenging his disciplinary
conviction. Ground one, restated, asserts that the four cups
of fecal matter were not dangerous or deadly weapons. Ground
two generally asserts that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction.