United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
CHRISTOPHER M. MACY, Petitioner,
DESHAUN ZATECKY, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence Judge
petition of Christopher M. Macy for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges Indiana prison disciplinary proceeding number ISR
16-11-0014, in which he was disciplined for the unauthorized
possession of documents. For the reasons explained in this
Entry, Mr. Macy's habeas petition is
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
October 28, 2016, Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC)
Officer Wilson of the Pendleton Correctional Facility wrote a
Conduct Report charging Mr. Macy with the unauthorized
possession of documents, a Class B offense in the IDOC's
Adult Disciplinary Process. The Conduct Report provides:
On the above date and time, I C/O Wilson asked offender Macy
if he had anything that had to do with state policies . . .
and Offender Macy stated he did and went to his bunk area and
handed me a paper he stated he had gotten from the law
library. I then shook Offender Macy down and found a few more
papers about security operations that Counselor Travis [now]
has in his possession.
Dkt. No. 8-1.
Macy was notified of the charge on November 3, 2016, when he
received the Screening Report. Dkt. No. 8-3. He plead not
guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate, indicated he
wished to call a witness, and requested certain evidence.
hearing was held on November 16, 2016. Mr. Macy's
statement at the hearing as “I feel Lagenor should have
written me up not Ofc. Wilson.” Dkt. No. 8-7. Based on
Mr. Macy's statement, staff reports, and the document
confiscated from Mr. Macy, the hearing officer found Mr. Macy
guilty of unauthorized possession of documents. The sanction
imposed was the loss of earned-credit time.
appeal was taken to the Facility Head and the IDOC Final
Reviewing Authority; both appeals were denied. Mr. Macy then
brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Macy's petition for habeas corpus seeks relief on four
grounds: (1) the wrong IDOC employee wrote the conduct
report; (2) the evidence used at the hearing had been
altered; (3) the disciplinary hearing was the result of
retaliation for having filed a grievance against IDOC
administrative personnel; and (4) the incident should ...