United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
HUNTER INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
VACATING SANCTIONS, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
petition of Anthony Wayne Reed for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
JCU 17-10-0034. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Reed's habeas petition must be granted.
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
October 31, 2017, Warden Osburn wrote a Conduct Report
charging Mr. Reed with B-213, threatening. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1;
Dkt. No. 10 at 15; Dkt. No. 14-1 at 1. The Conduct Report
On Tuesday, October 31 at approximately 0700 I, Warden
Osburn, became aware of a Request for Interview that was
written by offender Reed, Anthony 930206 on Thursday, October
19, 2017. In the body of the request form, offender Reed
writes, “This place is NOT!! big enough for the both of
us. Either he goes or or (sic) I be given a transfer
ASAP!!” Offender Reed was referring to Sergeant Powell.
I find offender Reed's comments threatening towards
Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1; Dkt. No. 10 at 15; Dkt. No. 14-1 at 1. A
two-page Request for Interview with handwritten notes on the
margins was attached to the Conduct Report. Dkt. No. 10 at
16-17; Dkt. No. 14-1 at 2-3. These notes are reproduced here:
Dkt. No. 10 at 16-17; Dkt. No. 14-1 at 2-3. Mr. Reed wrote
three notes: (1) “This place is ‘NOT!!' big
enough for the both of us either he goes, or I be given a
transfer ASAP!!”; (2) “… If this - Nothing
is done I will involve my people to call Central Office to
seek a STOP to Powell (Sic) illegal behavior”; and (3)
“If Powell is going to be work with Crew #35 I want
NOTHING to do with Crew #35!” Dkt. No. 10 at 16-17;
Dkt. No. 14-1 at 2-3.
Reed was notified of the charge on October 31, 2017, when he
received the Screening Report. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2; Dkt. No. 10
at 13; Dkt. No. 14-2 at 1. He pleaded not guilty to the
charge, requested a lay advocate, and did not request any
witnesses. As physical evidence, he requested copies of
grievance numbers 99005 and 99009, along with the appeals for
both, any incident reports regarding Mr. Reed and Sgt.
Powell, and any past grievances from Mr. Reed regarding Sgt.
Powell. Mr. Reed later refused his lay advocate on November
14, 2017. Dkt. No. 14-2 at 2.
prison disciplinary hearing was held on November 14, 2017.
According to the notes from the hearing, Mr. Reed wrote out a
statement (Dkt. No. 14-3 at 2-3) arguing that there were no
threats made in the Request for Interview and that not all of
his statements from the Request for Interview were included
in the write-up. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3; Dkt. No. 10 at 14; Dkt.
No. 14-3 at 1. The hearing officer noted that Mr. Reed
requested evidence, but that evidence was not presented at
the hearing. Based on the staff reports, the hearing officer
found Mr. Reed guilty of B-213, threatening. The sanctions
imposed included ninety days of earned credit time
deprivation and a credit class demotion from I to II.
Reed 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 ...