United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, SENIOR JUDGE
Carrico's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges
his conviction in a prison disciplinary proceeding identified
as ISR 18-01-0054. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Mr. Carrico's petition must be denied.
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
18-01-0054 was based on the following conduct report drafted
on January 5, 2018, by Officer D. Davis:
On 1/5/18 at aprox 930AM I Ofc. D. Davis was searching
Offender Carrico, Michael # 106495 / 21 / 4r's property.
In my search of this offenders property i OFC Davis did find
hidden in his cooler a black Samsung cell phone along with
charger and cord.
Davis completed an Evidence Record documenting that the
phone, charger, and cord were delivered to Internal Affairs
(IA) on January 5. Dkt. 7-2. The Evidence Record does not
document who received these items or at what time they were
received. The phone, charger, and cord were all photographed
with the Evidence Record. Id. Officer Davis also
completed a Notice of Confiscated Property documenting that
the cell phone, charger, and cord were confiscated and
forwarded to IA because they were not permitted. Dkt. No.
January 22, 2018, Mr. Carrico received a screening report
notifying him that he had been charged with possession of a
cellular device in violation of Code A-121 of the Indiana
Department of Correction's (IDOC) Adult Disciplinary
Process. Dkt. No. 11-4. Mr. Carrico signed the screening
report and did not request to call any witnesses or present
any physical evidence. Id.
Carrico was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing on January
30, 2018. Dkt. No. 11-7. The hearing report indicates that
the hearing officer reviewed staff reports, Mr. Carrico's
statement, and the photographs of the phone, charger, and
cord with the Evidence Record. Id. The hearing
officer found Mr. Carrico guilty based on a preponderance of
the evidence. Id. The sanctions against Mr. Carrico
included a written reprimand; 45 days' loss of phone,
kiosk, and commissary privileges; six months' confinement
to disciplinary restrictive housing; the imposition of a
previously suspended sanction of six months' confinement
to disciplinary restrictive housing; 180 days' earned
credit time deprivation; and demotion from credit class 1 to
credit class 2. Id.
Carrico unsuccessfully appealed his disciplinary conviction
to the facility head and to the final reviewing authority.
See Dkt. Nos. 11-8, 11-9, 11-10.
Carrico asserts five challenges against his disciplinary
conviction. Before addressing those challenges on the merits,
the Court finds it helpful to clarify the scope of this