United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DAVID J. DIXON STP-18-02-0136, Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court
petition of David J. Dixon for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
STP-18-02-0136. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Dixon'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 15, 2018, Sgt. R. Patton wrote a Conduct Report
charging Mr. Dixon with B-220, unauthorized financial
transaction. Dkt. 8-1. The Conduct Report states:
On February 14, 2018 at approximately 3:15 P.M., I Sgt.
Patton received information that Offender David Dixon
IDOC#111218 was using the phone PIN assigned to Offender
Larry Hazel IDOC# 250638. Upon reviewing the calls, Dixon
calls a phone number on 1/12/2018 that is also on his own
phone list. He states to a female, “Hi. Larry owes me
money. I'ma have him put money on the phone, but if you
wanna talk now, you'll prolyl have to do it.” End
Id. Sgt. Patton also prepared a report with a
transcript of the conversation that indicated that the call
was made from 317-732-5411 and lasted one minute. Dkt. 8-2. A
reverse lookup report identified the number as being
associated with Alexis Hines. Dkt. 8-3.
Dixon was notified of the charge on February 15, 2018, when
he received the Screening Report. Dkt. 8-4. He pleaded not
guilty to the charge, did not wish to have a lay advocate,
and did not request any witnesses or any physical evidence.
Id. He also waived his right to 24 hours'
advance notice before the disciplinary hearing. Id.
Mr. Dixon signed the Screening Report. Id.
prison disciplinary hearing was held on February 15, 2018.
According to the notes from the hearing, Mr. Dixon stated,
“[t]he number is not on my phone list.” Dkt. 8-5.
Based on the staff reports, the hearing officer found Mr.
Dixon guilty of B-220, unauthorized financial transaction.
The sanctions imposed included one day of earned-credit-time
deprivation and a credit class demotion from C to D.
Dixon appealed to the Facility Head and the Indiana
Department of Correction (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.
Dixon's habeas petition challenges his prison
disciplinary conviction on two grounds: (1) he was denied
evidence and (2) he was denied a lay advocate. See
dkt. 2. The respondent construes Mr. Dixon's habeas
petition to also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
Dkt. 8 at 5. The respondent argues that Mr. Dixon was not
denied due process and there is “some evidence”
to support his conviction. Id. at 5-10. Mr. Dixon
has not filed a reply, and time to do so has passed.