United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Magntts-Stinson, Chief Judge
petition of Ramar Daniels for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
CIC 16-07-0008. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Daniels'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
August 31, 2016, Investigator Poer issued a conduct report
charging Mr. Daniels with conspiring to commit assault (Code
B-212/240). Dkt. 11-1. The conduct report states:
On July 16, 2016 offender Daniels, Ramar 104542 33L-3ARH was
involved in an assault involving multiple offenders on the E
1/3 side. An investigation was conducted to determine the
cause of the assault and identify who participated in the
assault. At 8:41 PM offender Daniels entered cell 5-1E with
two other offenders and assaulted offender Joseph Mangold
148204. Offender Mangold was assigned to 5A-1E at the
date/time of the assault. Refer to Confidential Case File
16-CIC-0033 for additional details.
Id. Mr. Daniels was notified of the charge on March
23, 2017, when he was served with the conduct report and the
screening report. Dkts. 11-1, 11-2. Mr. Daniels requested to
call witnesses Jamar Mason, Joseph Mangold, and Otis Young.
Dkt. 11-2. Mr. Daniels also requested a camera review.
Daniels requested witnesses provided statements in lieu of
live testimony. When asked if Mr. Daniels went into the room
and exited with him, Mr. Mason responded, “No he dindnt
[sic] go in the room.” Dkt. 11-3 (capitalization
modified). When Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Mangold if he assaulted
him, Mr. Mangold responded “No offender [D]aniels did
not assault me.” Dkt. 11-4. A video review was prepared
On 3/31/17, I Major Fox reviewed the camera and I clearly
seen offender Daniels, R. #104542 walk over to cell 5-1E and
enter the cell of 5-1E with two other offenders. They then
ex[i]ted and one offender was carrying a TV. Then there was a
confrontation and offender Daniels is seen fighting with
other offenders then run to cell 13-3E and come out and go to
the restroom and attempt to evade Custody Staff.
hearing officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on March 31,
2017. Dkt. 11-8. The hearing officer noted that Mr.
Daniels' request for a postponement was denied and that
Mr. Daniels stated, “There wasn't no fight in
there. I went and talked to Mangold by myself. I left before
Mason and Young left. You had 30 days to rehear case.
It's been 4 months. I want to request pictures of my
hands.” Id. The hearing officer also noted
that Officer Veach stated there were no pictures.
hearing officer determined that Mr. Daniels had violated Code
B-212/240 based on the conduct report, video review, and
confidential case file. Id. The sanctions imposed
included a written reprimand, disciplinary segregation (time
served), the deprivation of 90 days of earned credit time,
and a demotion from credit class I to II. Id.
Daniels appealed to the Facility Head and the IDOC Final
Reviewing Authority, both of which were denied. He then
brought this petition for a writ of ...