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.

Reed v. Smith

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

July 30, 2018

ANTHONY WAYNE REED, Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN SMITH, Respondent.

          KYLE HUNTER INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

          ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, VACATING SANCTIONS, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          HON. WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE

         The 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.

         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 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 states:

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 Sergeant Powell.

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:

         (Image Omitted)

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.

         Mr. 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.

         The 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.

         Mr. 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 ...


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.