United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ANDREW W. PETERS, Petitioner,
BRIAN SMITH, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
prison inmate Andrew W. Peters petitioned for a writ of
habeas corpus challenging prison disciplinary proceeding
number ISF 17-06-0045. For the reasons explained in this
Order, Mr. Peters's petition is 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 by 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
1, 2017, a conduct report was issued charging Mr. Peters with
attempting to traffic, a violation of Code A-111/113 of the
Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders. The conduct report
On April 17, 2017 while assigned to the Trash Bash detail
Offender Andrew Peters did collect several items of
contraband along the road side and hid these items in van
#11741 with intentions of trafficking said items into
Putnamville Correctional Facility.
Dkt. No. 13-1, p. 1. The Indiana Department of Correction
(IDOC) Office of Investigation and Intelligence conducted an
investigation of the April 17 incident and issued a report
On April 25, 2017 Mr. McDonald, Office of Investigation and
Intelligence directed me Mr. Wire to conduct an additional
investigation per Conduct Hearing Board in which Officer
Anderson had filed a conduct report on Offender Andrew Peters
DOC #104855 for ADP 111/113, “Attempting to
Traffic[k].” Officer Anderson did not actually witness
Offender Peters in possession of the contraband, he
(Anderson) only found the contraband in the area of the van
where Offender Peters was setting [sic]. Offender Peters and
five other offenders were assigned to the Trash Bash detail
at the time of the incident.
During this investigation I interviewed all offenders
assigned to this detail to include Officer Anderson and
Officer Sparks. The can used during this assignment was
solely used for the trash bash detail. According to witnesses
Offender Peters had bragged about the articles that he
(Peters) had collected along the road side. Offender Peters
also described in detail to these offenders as to what he had
hidden in the van. During these interviews I did not suggest
to the witnesses who the suspect was in this case, in turn
Offender Peters name was mentioned on more than one occasion.
Dkt. No. 13-1, p. 4.
Peters was notified of the charge on June 5, 2017, when he
received the screening report. Dkt. No. 13-2. He plead not
guilty to the charge.
A hearing was held on June 14, 2017. Mr. Peters told the
I was sitting in Offender Ainsworth's area and he was
found to have tobacco in his boot. I found out he had the
tobacco after he was caught with it. I had no prior ...