United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court
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.
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
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.
report also indicates: “Placed in DHB room for
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.”
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.
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.
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.