Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wolfe v. Smith

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

June 28, 2018

GREGORY WOLFE, Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN SMITH, Respondent.

          ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court

         The petition of Gregory Wolfe for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR 17-02-0092. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Wolfe's habeas petition must be denied.

         A. Overview

         Prisoners 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).

         B. The Disciplinary Proceeding

         On February 3, 2017, Officer A. Long wrote a conduct report charging Mr. Wolfe with A-121, possession of a cellular device. The conduct report states:

On 2-3-17 [at] approximately 700 pm I A Long was conducting a search of Offender Wolfe Gregory #238354 Bed Area[.] While searching I found a Black AT&T cellphone and cellphone charger in a book underneath the beds of OSD 2-33 and 2-34.

         The report also indicates: “Placed in DHB room for evidence.”

         Wolfe was notified of the charge and was served with a copy of the screening report on February 22, 2017. The report indicates he was unable to sign, apparently because he was in a restricted housing cell. Mr. Wolfe was notified of his rights and pleaded not guilty. He requested a lay advocate and one was appointed on March 13, 2017. He requested one witness, Gary Gray, and he requested a “video review.” Gray provided a written statement, “I know nothing about this incident.” The disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) reviewed the video from February 3, 2017, and completed a written video evidence review that stated: “On 2.3.17 at approximately 1900 your (Wolfe, Gregory #238354) housing unit can be seen being searched.”

         After four postponements, a disciplinary hearing was held in case ISR 17-02-0092 on March 13, 2017. Mr. Wolfe pleaded not guilty and provided the following statement: “It wasn't mine. I had just got to that camp.” The DHO found Mr. Wolfe guilty of possession of cellular device. The DHO considered the staff report and Mr. Wolfe's statement. The reasons for the DHO's decision was “H/O finds conduct to be true and factual.” Due to the likelihood of sanction having a corrective effect on Mr. Wolfe's future behavior, the DHO imposed the following sanctions: a written reprimand, 30-day loss of jpay privileges, a suspended 180-day loss of ECT, and demotion in credit class from class 1 to class 2.

         Mr. Wolfe appealed the disciplinary action to the Superintendent on March 14, 2017. The appeal was denied on March 27, 2017. Mr. Wolfe then appealed to the final reviewing authority for the DOC on April 10, 2017, and the reviewing authority denied his appeal on April 20, 2017.

         C. Analysis

         Mr. Wolfe challenges the disciplinary action against him arguing that he was denied video evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and that he was denied a lay advocate.

         1. Denia ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.