United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
DEGUILIO, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Gladney, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging a disciplinary hearing (MCF 17-08-448)
where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty
of attempting to traffick in violation of Indiana Department
of Correction (IDOC) policies A-111 and A-113 on October 12,
2017. ECF 1 at 1. As a result, he was sanctioned with the
loss of 120 days earned credit time and a one-step demotion
in credit class. Id. The Warden has filed the
administrative record and Gladney filed a traverse. Thus this
case is fully briefed.
Fourteenth Amendment guarantees prisoners certain procedural
due process rights in prison disciplinary hearings: (1)
advance written notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to
be heard before an impartial decision-maker; (3) an
opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence in defense, when consistent with institutional
safety and correctional goals; and (4) a written statement by
the fact-finder of evidence relied on and the reasons for the
disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539 (1974). To satisfy due process, there must also be
“some evidence” in the record to support the
guilty finding. Superintendent, Mass. Corr Inst. v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). In his petition, Gladney
argues there are three grounds which entitle him to habeas
context of a prison disciplinary hearing, “the relevant
question is whether there is any evidence in the record that
could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary
board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56. “In
reviewing a decision for some evidence, courts are not
required to conduct an examination of the entire record,
independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the
evidence, but only determine whether the prison disciplinary
board's decision to revoke good time credits has some
factual basis.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d
784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).
[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only]
have the support of some evidence in the record. This is a
lenient standard, requiring no more than a modicum of
evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as the
record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the
disciplinary board were without support or otherwise
arbitrary. Although some evidence is not much, it still must
point to the accused's guilt. It is not our province to
assess the comparative weight of the evidence underlying the
disciplinary board's decision.
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000)
(quotation marks, citations, parenthesis, and ellipsis
Gladney was found guilty of attempting to traffic in
violation of IDOC policies A-111 and A-113. Specifically,
IDOC offense A-111 prohibits inmates from “[a]ttempting
or conspiring or aiding and abetting with another to commit
any Class A offense.” Indiana Department of Correction,
Adult Disciplinary Process: Appendix I.
The Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders defines
“attempt” as “[p]lanning to do something
that would be a violation of the administrative procedures
or any Department or facility rule, procedure or directive if
the act had actually been committed or when an offender
commits acts which showed a plan to violate the
administrative procedures or a Department or facility rule,
procedure, or direction when the acts occurred.”
Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders.
Additionally, IDOC offense A-113 prohibits inmates from
”[e]ngaging in trafficking (as defined in IC
35-44.1-3-5) with anyone who is not an offender residing in
the same facility. “ Appendix I, supra. And
“[a] person who, without the prior authorization of the
person in charge of a penal facility . . ., knowingly or
intentionally delivers . . . an article to an inmate . . . of
the facility . . . commits trafficking with an inmate, a
Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code §
Conduct Report charged Gladney as follows:
On August 24, 2017 at approximately 9:30 am I, J. Stoll,
received an envelope from the mailroom as part of an
investigation pertaining to sprayed letters coming in through
the mail. The letter was two pages and appears to have been
sprayed, then dried, and had a chemical smell on it. The
envelope was addressed to Tony Gladney 168392 and the return
address read Casey Moore. I, J. Stoll, did hear various phone
calls made between June 15, 2017 and August 19, 2017 that
during these phone calls Tony Gladney 168392 and his
girlfriend, Casey Moore had a conversation that led me to
believe that Casey Moore is sending in sprayed mail and Tony
Gladney 168392 was expecting it. During one of the phone
calls made on August 16, 2017 Casey Moore told Offender
Gladney 168392 that she sent it out and it was two pages.
Casey Moore says that the “car” was drenched and
she had to use a blow dryer but it looks good.
ECF 5-1 at 1.
Officer Stoll provided a statement about his investigation of
During the course of Department of Investigation and
Intelligence investigation I found that Tony Gladney 168392
conspired with his girlfriend, Casey Moore, to have letters
mailed in to him with the pages sprayed.
ECF 5-2 at 1.
reviewed the audio recordings of the phone calls between
Gladney and Moore and provided a ...