United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Brown's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a
prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. NCF
15-12-0260. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Brown's habeas petition must be 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 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
Brown's petition concerns an incident that occurred at
New Castle Correctional Facility (NCCF) on December 20, 2015.
On December 28, 2015, Internal Affairs Officer A. Williams
issued a Report of Conduct reading as follows:
The following Conduct Report has been issued to Offender
Rojae Brown #988991 for violation of Adult Disciplinary Code
Class B- 212 (Assault/Battery). On 12/20/15, Brown was
identified on camera, by Lt. Harrison, as one offender
involved in assaulting another offender. Internal Affairs
investigation finds: Brown was seen entering the quiet room
in F3 at the time the assault occurred and striking the
offender. The offender was notified of the conduct report.
Dkt. No. 8-1.
9, 2017, Lieutenant L. Storms reviewed and prepared a written
summary of security video related to the incident.
See Dkt. No. 8-6. Lieutenant Storms's summary
states that video shows Mr. Brown entering the “quiet
room.” Shortly thereafter, an incident appearing to be
a struggle or fight became visible. Roughly a minute later,
an inmate exited the quiet room. Mr. Brown then exited the
quiet room and appeared to be carrying a long-sleeved shirt
he was wearing when he entered the quiet room. He proceeded
to the bathroom, where he appeared to wash his hands and
respondent filed a copy of the security video with the Court
ex parte, Dkt. No. 11, and the Court finds
Lieutenant Storms's summary to be accurate. The Court
observes that the quiet room is difficult to see on the
video. The individual the respondent has identified as Mr.
Brown can be seen entering the quiet room, activity can be
seen in the quiet room's doorway, and the inmate who
preceded Mr. Brown in exiting the quiet room appears to be
Brown maintained that he did not assault the inmate but
rather entered the quiet room after the incident had already
begun, attempted to break it up, and got blood on his hands
and clothing as a result. See Dkt. No. 8-5.
Lieutenant Storms also served as the hearing officer in this
disciplinary proceeding and found Mr. Brown guilty of aiding,
abetting, attempting, or conspiring to commit assault or
battery. See Id. Sanctions included time in
disciplinary segregation, loss of certain privileges, 90
days' lost credit time, and demotion of one
credit-earning class. See id.
Storms's hearing report states that he found Mr. Brown
guilty based on Officer Williams's conduct report,
“video review, ” and Mr. Brown's statement in
his own defense. See id.
Brown raises three issues in his petition. For the reasons
set forth below, none of these issues ...