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.

Williams v. Emerson

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

July 18, 2018

MARTAZZ WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
D. EMERSON Superintendent, Respondent.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RULING, GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND PETITION, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge

         I. Motion for Ruling

         Petitioner Martazz Williams's motion for ruling, dkt. 16, is granted to the extent the Court is contemporaneously issuing its ruling on Mr. Williams's petition for habeas corpus.

         II. Motion to Amend Petition

         Mr. Williams's motion to amend petition, dkt. 17, is granted to the extent the Court will construe his motion to amend petition to be a supplemental reply brief.

         III. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

         The petition of Martazz Williams for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. STP 17-05-0139. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr. Williams'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 May 25, 2017, Officer Lloyd wrote a Conduct Report charging Mr. Williams with B-202, possession of a controlled substance. Dkt. 1-1 at 9; dkt. 10-1. The Conduct Report states:

On May 25, 2017, at approximately 2:36 am, I, Officer W. Lloyd, conducted a search on Offender Martazz Williams (DOC# 160139). Offender Martazz Williams was in possession of a green leafy substance (K2).

Dkt. 1-1 at 9; dkt. 10-1. A Notice of Confiscated Property listing “(1) packet of a green leafy substance (K2)” and “(1) rolled joint of (K2) green leafy substance” was issued, but Mr. Williams refused to sign it. Dkt. 10-3.

         Mr. Williams was notified of the charge on June 1, 2017, when he received the Screening Report. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate, and did not request any witnesses. Dkt. 1-1 at 5; dkt. 10-2 at 1. He ...


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.