United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
Abigail T. Rom INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
petition of Joshawn Taylor for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges Indiana prison disciplinary proceeding number CIC
17-03-0237. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Taylor's habeas 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
March 15, 2017, Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC)
Officer Bartlett was conducting routine searches of inmates.
He found what he believed to be a controlled substance on
petitioner Joshawn Taylor and wrote a Conduct Report charging
Mr. Taylor with possession of a controlled substance, a B-202
violation. Officer Bartlett's Conduct Report provides:
On 3/15/17 at approximately 2:00PM, I Officer Bartlett was
conducting a routine strip search for a shakedown. During the
strip search, I located an altered pen behind the ear of
Offender Taylor, Joshawn #245340 (13B-3E). There was an
unknown substance inside the pen with black burn marks.
Taylor was formally notified of the charge on March 18, 2017,
when he received the Screening Report. Dkt. 8-2. He pleaded
not guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate, and
requested that the found substance be tested. Id. A
prison official, Investigator Poer, denied the request to
have the substance tested. Dkt. 10 (ex parte investigative
report). In Investigator Poer's assessment, the altered
pen was an item of drug paraphernalia, which is prohibited
under code provision B-202, and therefore testing was not
necessary. Id.; see also dkt. 8-5
(photograph of altered pen).
IDOC's Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders, offense
code section B-202, provides:
Possession or Use of Controlled Substance
Possession or use of any unauthorized substance controlled
pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana or the United
States Code or possession of drug paraphernalia.