United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DONNIE A. ROSE, Petitioner,
T. CRAFT INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
R. SWEENEY II, JUDGE
petition of Donnie A. Rose for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
JCU 17-08-0009. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Rose'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
August 11, 2017, Officer Tetrick wrote a Conduct Report
charging Mr. Rose with B-202, possession of a controlled
substance. Dkt. 7-1. The Conduct Report states:
On 8/11/2017 at 1530 hour's [sic] I Ofc. Tetrick, Sgt.
Jeter, and Lt. Lane were out in building 643 patting down
offenders as they came in from crew. When crew 27 came back
in Sgt. Jeter was doing a strip search on offender Rose,
Donnie DOC#160366 when he noticed a lump on the inner lining
of the boot[;] Sgt. Jeter was trying to find the opening to
where the package was shoved into the inner lining of the
boot, and was unable to locate it. Lt. Lane sent Sgt. Jeter
to go get a pair of scissors to cut open the inner lining of
the boot to further inspect what was inside the lining of the
boot. While Sgt. Jeter was getting scissors Lt. Lane and
myself Ofc. Tetrick kept inspecting the boot. Lt. Lane had
his hand inside the boot continuing to look for a hole in the
inner lining of the boot when Lt. Lane and myself Ofc.
Tetrick saw two peach colored pills the [sic] read V3605 fall
out of the boot before Sgt. Jeter had returned with the
scissors. I Ofc. Tetrick immediately picked up both pills and
put them in a glove and gave them to Sgt. Jeter. Sgt. Jeter
took the pills to medical and had the nurses look at them to
verify what they actually were. Medical verified both pills
as Hydrocodone (325mg), and stated that wasn't anything
we carried on center. This puts offender Rose, Donnie
DOC#160366 in violation of a Class B Offense 202-Possession
or use of controlled substance.
Dkt. 7-1. Lt. Lane and Stephen Jeter also prepared Incident
Reports regarding the same incident. Dkt. 7-2; Dkt. 7-3. The
two tablets were confiscated, visually verified to be
Hydrocodone, and sent to the evidence locker. Dkt. 7-4.
Rose was notified of the charge on August 11, 2017, when he
received the Screening Report. Dkt. 7-5. He pleaded not
guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate, and did not
request any witnesses or physical evidence. Id. A
lay advocate was later appointed. Dkt. 7-6.
prison disciplinary hearing was held on August 25, 2017.
According to the notes from the hearing, Mr. Rose stated,
“I just got the boots that Sunday. I wore them about a
week.” Dkt. 7-7. Based on the staff reports and Mr.
Rose's statement, the hearing officer found Mr. Rose
guilty of B-202, possession of a controlled substance,
because there was nothing disputing the charge on the conduct
report. The sanctions imposed included ninety days of
earned-credit-time deprivation and a credit class demotion.
Rose 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.
petition, Mr. Rose asserts three grounds to challenge his
prison disciplinary conviction: (1) denial of exculpatory
evidence; (2) due process violation due to incorrect case
numbers on various forms; and (3) the boots he was issued
were not compliant with IDOC policy. Dkt. 1. The respondent
has construed Mr. Rose's third ground to be a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Court will do so
as well. The respondent argues that Mr. Rose's due
process rights were not violated, typographical errors in a
case number do not violate due process, and there is