Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniels v. Knight

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

May 8, 2018

RAMAR DANIELS, Petitioner,
v.
WENDY KNIGHT, Respondent.

          ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Jane Magntts-Stinson, Chief Judge

         The 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 denied.

         A. Overview

         Prisoners 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).

         B. The Disciplinary Proceeding

         On 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. Id.

         Mr. 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 that states:

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.

Dkt. 11-6.

         The 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. Id.

         The 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.

         Mr. 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.