United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
CHANDRA HEIN INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, SENIOR JUDGE
petition of Daniel Baldwin for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as IYC
18-04-0024. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Baldwin's habeas petition must be
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits
or of credit-earning class without due process. Ellison
v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 2016);
Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir.
2007); see also Rhoiney v. Neal, 723 Fed.Appx. 347,
348 (7th Cir. 2018). The due process requirement is satisfied
with: 1) the issuance of at least 24 hours advance written
notice of the charge; 2) a limited opportunity to call
witnesses and present evidence to an impartial
decision-maker; 3) a written statement articulating the
reasons for the disciplinary action and the evidence
justifying it; and 4) “some evidence in the
record” to support the finding of guilt.
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 454 (1985); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
April 3, 2018, Lieutenant J. Hill issued a Report of Conduct
charging Mr. Baldwin with a violation of Code 220, Engaging
in Unauthorized Financial Transaction. Dkt. 6-1. The Report
of Conduct states:
On 4/3/18 at approx. 6:45 am I Lt. J. Hill was conduct [sic]
a search of Offender Daniel Baldwin's bed area and found
a piece of paper with a phone number on it. (317-560-3413).
The piece of paper also stated “bishop said tell vikki
she better put that money on the phone today.” Offender
Baldwin was identified by his state ID and notified of this
Baldwin was notified of the charge on April 4, 2018, when he
received the Report of Conduct and Screening Report. Dkt. 6-1
at 1, 6-2. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and requested
a lay advocate. Dkt. 6-3. Mr. Baldwin asked to call two
witnesses, Offender Bishop and Offender Welch. Id.
Mr. Baldwin intended to ask Offender Bishop if the paper was
Mr. Baldwin's, and he intended to ask Offender Welch if
the paper belonged to Offender Welch. Id. Mr.
Baldwin did not request any physical evidence. Id.
Welch provided a written statement on April 6, 2018. It
The paper that was found was mine. I was attempting to help a
friend get his family to put money on his phone.
Bishop provided a written statement on April ...