United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
petition of Roosevelt Hawthorne for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
IYC 18-03-0179. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Hawthorne'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
March 28, 2018, Investigator Gaskin issued a Report of
Conduct charging Hawthorne with a violation of Code B-215,
Unauthorized Possession of Property. The Report of Conduct
On March 26, 2018 at approximately 12:30 PM, I R Gaskin
Investigator had a conversation with offender HAWTHORNE,
ROOSEVELT F. #973835, about his foot gear. Inmate Hawthorne
said that he was authorized black gym shoes because of
medical reasons that was authorized by the medical staff from
another facility and had it updated when he got here to IYC.
Offender Hawthorne was asked for a copy of his medical
instructions sheet, upon reviewing the document inmate
Hawthorne was call to the investigations' office for
further conversation on the shoes. During the interview
inmate Hawthorne on 3-28-2018, inmate Hawthorne admitted that
he receive the pair of black Nike shoes from an offender that
was housed in the PLUS unit and that he was leaving the
facility. Inmate Hawthorne alleges that at ¶ 3-15-2018,
he went to medical and had the doctor write him an order to
wear the black Nike shoes with the white accents. He went on
to say because medical informed him that diabetic shoes were
too costly for medical to purchase. When asked inmate
Hawthorne admit that no other staff authorized him to receive
the shoes from the other inmate other than the doctor when
Hawthorne took the shoes to HSU for the medical staff to
review. A SF36030 (Notice of Confiscated Property) receipt
was given to the he [sic] inmate.
was notified of the charge on April 4, 2018, when he was
served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing. Dkts 7-1, 7-3. Hawthorne pled not
guilty and stated that he would bring evidence from medical.
Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on April 6,
2018. Dkt. 7-10. The Hearing Officer noted that Hawthorne
stated, “Doctor authorized me to wear these shoes
knowing they was from another offender. For mesh [sic]
submitted two copies of two exhibits to the hearing officer
that reflected he had authorization to keep and wear the
shoes at issue. See dkt. 2-1 at ¶ 1-2. These
documents included the following:
1. Medical instructions dated January 11, 2018, that states
that Hawthorne was cleared to wear diabetic shoes per MD Dew.
Dkt. 7-5, 7-8.
2. A facility note dated March 15, 2018, with a
classification order that states, “cleared to wear
diabetic shoes he has from outside (already in his
possession) NO stairs offender may keep wearing, unless regs
specifically require him to wear his boots, daily, at all
times, until he is ...