United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
petition of Shane Querry for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
IYC 17-05-0240. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Querry'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
25, 2017, Officer W. Elias wrote a Conduct Report charging
Mr. Querry with a violation of Code B-212, assault/battery.
The Conduct Report states:
On 5/25/2017 at approximately 12:08 pm, I Officer W. Elias
was assigned to IHU K-Wing. While offering cell cleaning to
the Range I approached cell 19, when the Offender in cell 18
belonging to Querry, Shane #943517, stated “this is
what you get for writing me up” and threw an unknown
substance from a cup striking my left shoulder area.
Dkt. 1-1 at 11; dkt. 12-1.
Querry asserts that the “screening officer refused to
screen stating you make my blood boil.” Dkt. 1 at 2.
However, Mr. Querry attaches a Screening Report that reflects
that Officer M. Richardson notified Mr. Querry on May 27,
2017, that he was charged with B-212, assault/battery, when
he received the Screening Report. Dkt. 1-1 at 16. He pleaded
not guilty to the charge and requested a lay advocate. He
requested to call as witnesses Sergeant McCoy, Sergeant J.
Gagnon, and Sergeant Weaver to “tell what
happened.” He also requested video review of the
K2-range from 12:00 pm - 12:30 pm. Officer Gagnon stated
that, “on date and time of said offense, I was working
the K1 hallway side of the unit. I did not see anything
happen as I was not on the K2 hallway when the said offense
occurred.” Dkt. 1-1 at 13 (capitalization modified);
dkt. 12-4. Sergeant Weaver stated that, “I don't
know. I wasn't there for the incident.” Dkt. 1-1 at
14; dkt. 12-5. Sergeant J. McCoy stated, “I was present
at the time and video review was inconclusive due to blurry
view when zoomed in.” Dkt. 1-1 at 15, dkt. 12-6.
hearing officer viewed the video evidence and completed a
summary of the video, which states:
On 05/27/0217 at approximately 4:00 PM, I DHO S. Walker
review IHU K wing K2 front Camera for an Incident on
5/25/2017 at approximately 12:08 PM. After reviewing the
camera between the times of 12:00 PM thru 12:30 PM, I clearly
observed the following:
12:05:43 Officer Elias walks up to cell 19 with a broom, dust
pan, and germaway bottle.
12:05:45 Officer Elias looks towards cell 18 taking a step
back and dropping broom and dust pan.
12:05:47 Officer Elias takes two more steps back as it
appears to be something ...