United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
CALVIN L. SARVER, Petitioner,
WARDEN, Plainfield Correctional Facility,  Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
L. Sarver's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges prison disciplinary proceeding number REF
16-04-0024. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Sarver's habeas petition is 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 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
April 16, 2016, Indiana Department of Correction Officer
George Edmonds had an interaction with Mr. Sarver that
resulted in the following Conduct Report:
On 4/16/2016 at approximately 9:48 a.m. I (Officer George
Edmonds Jr.) gave resident Sarver, Calvin #943684 an order to
take the sheet down which was hanging across him while he sat
on the toilet in C 1 restroom. This writer wanted [to] pat
search Sarver #943684. Sarver stated “I just sat
down” I officer Edmonds stood and waited but Sarver
[began] to prolong the wait. I officer Edmonds asked Sarver
did he have anything he wanted to give me. Sarver . . .
stated “no”. I Ofc. Edmonds ordered Sarver to
stand up, then I began to pat search him. Soon as I got to
Sarver [sic] right leg he reached and grabbed a black cell
phone out of his sweat pants and fled into the D1 Bathroom.
Sarver reached his hand with the cell phone into the toilet
and flushed once, then I officer Edmonds gave him [an] Order
to turn around and cuff up.
As I radioed for 06 then radio for Officer Needs Assistance
in Unit 8. Sarver flushed the toilet once again, then Sarver
stood up and placed his hands behind his back. I Officer
Edmonds placed hand cuffs on resident Sarver #943684 and
escorted him to the shift office. Once Sarver got to the
shift office he admitted to this writer and Lt. J. White that
he had a cell phone that he had taken from the refrigerator
in the C1-D1 dayroom area.
Dkt. No. 13-1.
Edmonds escorted Mr. Sarver to the shift office. There, Mr.
Sarver admitted to Lt. White and Officer Edmonds that he had
a cell phone. Dkt. No. 13-2. Lt. White prepared a statement
reflecting Mr. Sarver's admission:
On 4-16-2016 at approx. 9:57a.m., Officer George Edmonds Jr.
escorted resident Sarver, Calvin #943684 to the shift office.
I was informed by Officer Edmonds that resident Sarver,
Calvin #943684 had a cell phone in his procession [sic] and
when he was being pat down he fled and flushed the cell phone
down the toilet. This writer, Lieutenant James White,
interviewed Sarver, Calvin #943684 who then admitted to this
writer and officer Edmonds that he had a cell phone that he
had taken from the refrigerator in the C1-D1 dayroom area.
Sarver was notified of the charge on April 21, 2016, when he
received the Screening Report. That report charged Mr. Sarver
with violating the Adult Disciplinary Code Section A-100,
which makes violating any state or federal law an IDOC
offense. The state statute Mr. Sarver was alleged to have
violated was Indiana Code 35-44.1-2-2(a)(3), the statute
criminalizing obstruction of justice. He plead not guilty to
the charge, asked for a lay advocate, and said he did not
wish to call any witnesses nor did he request any evidence.
Dkt. No. 13-3.
hearing was held on April 28, 2016. At the hearing Mr. Sarver
asserted his innocence, stating he never had or admitted to
having a cell phone. Dkt. No. 13-5. The hearing officer
convicted Mr. Sarver of violating offense A-100, relying on
staff reports, Mr. Sarver's statement, and the written
statement from Lt. White. The hearing officer wrote that the
evidence was clear that Mr. Sarver destroyed evidence by