United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT
L. MILLER, JR. JUDGE
Antwain
Cobb, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging the disciplinary decision (ISP
18-10-232) at the Indiana State Prison in which a
disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of battery in
violation of the Indiana Department of Correction Offense
B-212. He lost ninety days earned credit time. Under Section
2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the court must dismiss the
petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court.”
Mr.
Cobb argues that the hearing officer lacked sufficient
evidence to find him guilty. He says the victim didn't
identify him by name, that the video recording didn't
show him committing a battery, and that the victim told a
correctional officer that he was hurt because he fell in the
shower.
[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).
Mr.
Cobb was found guilty of Offense 212, which departmental
policy defines as “committing a battery on another
person.” Indiana Department of Correction, Adult
Disciplinary Process,
https://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101%20Appendix%20I%206-4-2018.pdf.
In the legal context, a battery is commonly understood as
“[t]he nonconsensual touching of, or use of force
against, the body of another with the intent to cause harmful
or offensive contact.” Black's Law Dictionary (10th
ed. 2014). The administrative record includes: (1) statement
from a correctional officer that the victim was found in the
cell with a large bump on his forehead; (2) a statement from
the victim that the injury was inflicted when “he got
into it with someone;” and (3) a video recording that
indicated that Mr. Cobb entered the cell shortly before the
correctional officer discovered the victim's injury.
Despite the evidentiary deficiencies listed by Mr. Cobb, the
administrative record includes some evidence to support the
finding of guilt. The claim that the hearing officer lacked
sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt is not a basis for
habeas relief.
Mr.
Cobb also argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because
he didn't have an impartial decisionmaker. He says the
hearing officer also served as the officer who reviewed the
video recording and prepared a summary. In the prison
disciplinary context, adjudicators are “entitled to a
presumption of honesty and integrity, ” and “the
constitutional standard for improper bias is high.”
Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003).
Due process prohibits a prison official who was personally
and substantially involved in the underlying incident from
acting as a decisionmaker in the case. Id. Due
process isn't violated simply because the hearing officer
knew the inmate, presided over a prior disciplinary case, or
had some limited involvement in the event underlying the
charge. Id. That the hearing officer personally
reviewed the video recording instead of relying on another
officer to summarize it doesn't suggest improper bias.
While the hearing officer served multiple roles, there is no
indication that he was involved with the underlying charge or
that he had any personal interest in Mr. Cobb's
disciplinary hearing. The claim that the hearing officer
wasn't an impartial decisionmaker isn't a basis for
habeas relief.
Because
it is clear from the petition and attached exhibits that Mr.
Cobb is not entitled to habeas relief, the petition is
denied. If Mr. Cobb wants to appeal this decision, he
doesn't need a certificate of appealability because he is
challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. See Evans
v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009). But
he may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the
court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an
appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith.
For
these reasons, the court:
(1)
DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus
Rule 4;
(2)
DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and to close this case;
and
(3)
DENIES Antwain Cobb leave to proceed in forma ...