United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
habeas action, petitioner Kevin Hoskins challenges a prison
disciplinary conviction. The petitioner was found guilty on
March 2, 2017, of possession of a cellular device in
violation of Code A-121 in IYC 17-02-0163. Sanctions
including the deprivation of 120 days of earned credit time
respondent seeks the dismissal of this action on the grounds
that Mr. Hoskins failed to exhaust his administrative appeals
process and he has not shown the denial of any clearly
established federal right. Mr. Hoskins did not reply to these
arguments. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Hoskins' grounds for relief are either procedurally
defaulted or not cognizable.
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).
February 3, 2017, Officer A. Long wrote a report of conduct
in case IYC 17-02-0163 charging Mr. Hoskins with offense
A-121, possession of a cellular device. The conduct report
On 2-3-17 approximately 715 pm I A. Long was conducting a
search of offender Hoskins #120108 bed area while conducting
the search I found a black Verizon phone in a boot.
Dkt. 11-1. The conduct report lists Mr. Hoskins' housing
unit as OSD 2-74. A photo of the evidence record form and
phone was taken. On February 16, 2017, Mr. Hoskins was
notified of the charge and served with a copy of the conduct
report and a copy of the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing
“Screening Report.” Mr. Hoskins was notified of
his rights and pleaded not guilty. He requested a lay
advocate and one was appointed. Mr. Hoskins requested a
witness statement from Offender Jason Reynolds and camera
review. Both were provided along with witness statements from
March 2, 2017, the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) held a
disciplinary hearing in case IYC 17-02-163. Mr. Hoskins
pleaded not guilty and provided the following statement:
“It wasn't my boot. I had only been there two
weeks, I didn't have any boots.” The report of
disciplinary hearing indicates the DHO considered staff
reports, Mr. Hoskins' statement, evidence from witnesses,
the photo, and video evidence. The DHO found Mr. Hoskins
guilty of A-121 possession of a cellular device and gave a
written reason for the decision. The DHO imposed the
following sanctions: 120 days' loss earned credit time,
and a suspended demotion in credit class from class B to
Hoskins appealed the disciplinary action to the facility head
on March 5, 2017, which was denied on March 20, 2017. He
argued that the conduct report contained errors, that his
transfers made it difficult to get witness statements, and
that the hearing should have been conducted within seven days
according to policy. Dkt. 11-12. Mr. Hoskins appealed to the
final reviewing authority for the Indiana Department of
Correction on April 3, 2017. In this appeal Mr. Hoskins
argues that the phone was found in a common area and that
there was a delay between the incident and hearing date. Dkt.
11-13. This appeal was denied on April 5, 2017.
succeed on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a
petitioner must first “exhaust[ ] the remedies
available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(A). “Indiana does not provide judicial
review of decisions by prison administrative bodies, so the
exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) is
satisfied by pursuing all administrative remedies.”
Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir.
2002). “[W]hen the habeas petitioner has failed to
fairly present ... the claim on which he seeks relief in
federal court and the opportunity to raise that claim in
state court has passed, the petitioner has procedurally
defaulted that claim.” Perruquet v. Briley,
390 F.3d 505, 514 (7th Cir. 2004). Fair presentment requires
a petitioner to “put forward [the] operative facts and
controlling legal principles.” Simpson v.
Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, 593 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
Indiana, only the issues raised in a timely appeal to the
Facility Head and then to the Indiana Department of
Correction Appeals Review Officer or Final Reviewing
Authority may be raised in a subsequent Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A);
Eads v. Hanks, 280 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 2002);
Moffat, 288 F.3d at 981. The respondent argues that
Mr. Hoskins failed to exhaust the administrative appeals
process as to certain claims, and because the time to
complete such ...