United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern
District of Indiana Distribution:
petition of Deadrian Boykins for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
ISR 17-05-0034. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Boykins' habeas petition must be
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
6, 2017, Mr. Boykins was charged with offense A-102, assault:
On the above date and approx time, I Ofc. K. Boules was
watching the chow line in dining room two. After everyone was
seated, Offender Boykins (201883) and Offender Smith (974253)
began to fight. I Ofc. Boules called a Signal 10-10 and went
to split them up. No. force was required because both
offenders complied. Both Ofds. were placed in restraints.
Ofd. Boykins was taken to a dry cell. Ofd. Smith was taken to
the infirmary to be seen by medical.
photograph attached to the conduct report depicts the
injuries that Mr. Smith suffered. Dkts. 8-1, 10.
11, 2017, Mr. Boykins was served with a copy of the conduct
and screening reports. Mr. Boykins was notified of his
rights. He did not request a lay advocate, witnesses, or
physical evidence. Dkt. 8-2.
12, 2017, the hearing officer held a hearing in case ISR
17-05-0034. Mr. Boykins stated that, “this is not a
102. It's a fight only.” Dkt. 8-3. After
considering staff reports, Mr. Boykins' statement, and
the photograph, the hearing officer found Mr. Boykins guilty
of offense A-102, assault. Mr. Boykins' sanctions
included a loss of 380 days credit time and demotion from
credit class 1 to credit class 2. Id.
Boykins 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 habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254.
support of his petition for habeas relief, Mr. Boykins argues
that his due process rights were violated in three ways: (1)
he was not provided a sufficient written statement detailing
the reasons for the disciplinary action; (2) there was no
statement or medical report indicating the other offender had
suffered bodily harm; and (3) the hearing officer did not
consider all of the facts. Because the Court finds that Mr.
Boykins is entitled to relief on the first ground, it will
not address his other grounds.