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 United States District Court
Craig, an Indiana inmate incarcerated in the Westville
Correctional Facility, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility, number WVE 16-12-0041. For the
reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Craig's habeas
corpus 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
December 15, 2016, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Sergeant J. Shroyer opened the door of Mr. Craig's cell
and observed him swallow something. Sgt. Shroyer charged Mr.
Craig with violating Section A-100 of the Adult Disciplinary
Code, which makes it an offense to violate any state or
federal law. Sgt. Shroyer believed that Mr. Craig, by
swallowing something, had obstructed justice, an offense
under the Indiana criminal statutes. Ind. Code §
35-44.1-2-2. The conduct report provides:
On 12-15-16 at approx. 10:05 a.m. I Sgt. J. Shroyer did
witness offender Craig, Larry #956703 swallow an object when
his door opened for a cell search[.]
Dkt. No. 12-1.
Craig was notified of the charge on December 16, 2016, when
he received a copy of the conduct report and received the
screening report. Dkt. No. 12-2. He plead not guilty to the
hearing was held on December 20, 2016. Mr. Craig told the
hearing officer that “Sgt. Shroyer never saw me put
anything in my mouth or swallow anything when they began the
shakedown.” Dkt. No. 12-4. Based on this statement and
the staff reports, the hearing officer found Mr. Craig guilty
of violating section A-100. The sanctions imposed included
sixty-days' earned-credit-time deprivation and a credit
class demotion. Id.
Craig appealed to the Facility Head and the IDOC Final
Reviewing Authority; both appeals were denied. Dkt. Nos.
12-5, 12-6. He then brought this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
grounds for relief are presented by Mr. Craig in his
petition. First, Mr. Craig contends he was denied due process
of law when he was not provided with a written statement of
the facts relied upon by the disciplinary hearing officer to
support the decision. Second, because the hearing officer did
not read and explain the sanctions imposed following the
finding of guilt, Mr. Craig believes he was denied due
process. Third, Mr. Craig had requested a “dry
cell” report as evidence for his disciplinary hearing,
and contends that the disciplinary hearing officer's
denial of that request denied him due process of law. Fourth,
he contends there was insufficient evidence to support the
hearing officer's decision. Finally, in his fifth ground
for relief, Mr. Craig contends his disciplinary hearing
officer was biased.
Warden asserts that Mr. Craig did not present his first,
second, and fifth grounds for relief to the Warden or
Superintendent during the administrative appeals ...