United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
PHILIP
P. SIMON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Michael
Wilson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended habeas
corpus petition challenging a disciplinary hearing in which a
Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of violating a
state law, which in turn is a violation of Indiana Department
of Correction policy A-100. ECF 6 at 1. As a result, Wilson
was docked 360 days of earned credit time and was demoted in
credit class to boot. Id.
The
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). This means that, in the 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.”
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
“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). This is
an exceedingly low standard. Here's how the Seventh
Circuit describes it:
[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
omitted).
In this
case, Wilson was found guilty of violating a state law for
dealing in a synthetic drug in contravention of IDOC policy
A-100, which prohibits inmates from violating any state law.
See Indiana Department of Correction, Adult
Disciplinary Process: Appendix I. See
http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101
APPENDIXI-OFFENSES6-1-2015(1).pdf. The particular
state law violation that Wilson allegedly committed involved
dealing in more than five grams of synthetic marijuana in
violation of Indiana Code 35-48-4-10.5(e)(1)(B), a level 6
felony.
In the
Conduct Report, Investigator Prulhiere charged Wilson as
follows:
On November 20, 2016, as a result of this investigation, I,
Investigator P. Prulhiere, have found sufficient evidence to
charge Offender Michael Wilson 990969 with the violation of
State Law IC 35-48-4-10.5(e)(1)(B) Dealing in a synthetic
drug or lookalike substance. Amount exceeding 5 grams.
ECF 11-1 at 1. A Report of Investigation of Incident was also
prepared and states:
IC Code: 35-48-4-10.5(e)(1)(B) Dealing in a synthetic drug or
lookalike substance. Amount exceeding 5 grams. On October 20,
2016 at approximately 10:05 am, I, Investigator P. Prulhiere
was advised that green packages were observed thrown over the
fence near the Health Services Unit from a car that was
passing by. Having been notified of the circumstances
involved in this incident, I used information that was
already on file to narrow down a search parameter to find
contraband that may have been introduced to the facility in
this manner. I reviewed activity in housing Unit South G Unit
and observed activity consistent with offenders in the
process of hiding contraband. A search team was assembled and
sent to G Unit where an Officer did retrieve two green
packages from the G Unit latrine. During the process of
investigation (summarized in confidential case number
16-IYC-0171) I observed the arrival of the packages to the
facility, the movement of the packages to Housing Unit South
G Unit and the attempted hiding of the items in G Unit
latrine. I observed the command and control by the use of a
cell phone and the attempts made by offenders to conceal this
activity. As a result of this investigation, Offender Michael
Wilson 990969 was found to have carried the packages from the
Health Services Unit back to Housing Unit South. Once in G
Unit, Offender Wilson handed control of the packages to
another offender. The contents of the packages were
inventoried and a complete inventory of the items is included
in case number 16-IYC-0171. Amount the items present was a
quantity of synthetic marijuana exceeding a weight of 5
grams. The presence of the synthetic drug is the reason this
charge was filed for dealing in a synthetic drug.
ECF 11-1 at 2.
Wilson
was notified of the charge on November 30, 2016, when he was
served with the conduct report and screening report, ECF 11-1
at 1 and ECF 11-2 at 1. The screening officer noted that
Wilson did not request any witnesses, but did request a copy
of the internal affairs report of investigation. ECF 11-2 at
1. At the hearing, Wilson stated: “I'm not guilty.
I have never been caught with no drugs at all.” ECF
11-4 at 1. The hearing officer found Wilson guilty of
violating offense A-100 based on staff reports, Wilson's
statement, the report of investigation, and the evidence
contained in the record. ECF 11-4 at 1, 11-9 at 2.
In his
amended petition, Wilson argues there are four grounds which
entitle him to habeas corpus relief. ECF 6 at 2-6. In his
first ground, he asserts his due process rights were violated
because he was denied the right to present evidence in his
defense. Id. at 2-3. In this regard, he claims that
he was denied crucial evidence-photographs, video footage,
and all exculpatory evidence-both during his screening and at
the hearing. Id. at 2. A prisoner has a right to
call witnesses and present documentary evidence in a prison
disciplinary proceeding. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566.
Wilson's right to present evidence was satisfied. During
his screening, he had the right to request witnesses and
evidence in his defense. However, as indicated on his
screening report, Wilson did not request any witnesses or
physical evidence-except for the internal affairs report of
investigation for case number 16-IYC-0171. ECF 11-2 at 1.
This is confirmed by the declarations filed in this case by
both the screening officer, Haywood Andrews, and the hearing
officer, Robert Gagnon. ECF 11-8 at 1-2, 11-9 at 1-2. In
Andrews's declaration, he testified that “Wilson
did not request any photographs, videos, or evidence during
the screening except the Report of Investigation.” ECF
11-8 at 2. And Gagnon testified that “Wilson did not
...