United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
September 18, 2018, Larry Jones filed his petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging a disciplinary proceeding that commenced with
Incident Report No. 3045161. The respondent filed a return to
order to show cause on November 1, 2018, dkt. 8, and Mr.
Jones replied on November 30, 2018, dkt. 9. The action is
ripe for resolution.
reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Jones' habeas
petition must be denied.
inmates must be afforded due process before any of their good
time credits-in which they have a liberty interest-can be
revoked.” Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 845
(7th Cir. 2011). “In the context of a prison
disciplinary hearing, due process requires that the prisoner
receive (1) written notice of the claimed violation at least
24 hours before hearing; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses
and present documentary evidence (when consistent with
institutional safety) to an impartial decision-maker; and (3)
a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied
on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.”
Id.; see also Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.
v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974). In addition,
“some evidence” must support the guilty finding.
Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir.
2016); Jones, 637 F.3d at 845.
The Disciplinary Proceeding Regarding Incident Report
Counselor T. Nichols prepared Incident Report No. 3045161 on
October 15, 2017, charging Mr. Jones with a violation of Code
108, Possession of a Cellular Phone. The Incident Report
stated as follows:
At approximately 1355, on Sunday 10-15-2017, this officer (T.
Nichols) discovered a cellular phone in the possession of
inmate Jones, Larry 13093-027. While making rounds in S01,
last room closest to fire exit, inmate Jones 13093-027 was
laying on the bottom bunk closest to the door with a cell
phone in his hands. I ordered the inmate to surrender the
cell phone and his commissary card. The inmate complied
without any issues. The inmate also voluntarily surrendered
the charger, which I had not seen. The cell phone is a black
SAMSUNG, model SM-J327T1. The charger is a white LG
electronics, Travel Adapter, MCS-01WRE, EAY64329301.
Incident Report was delivered to Mr. Jones and he was
verbally advised of his rights on October 17, 2017. Dkt. 8-4;
dkt. 8-7. The Unit Disciplinary Committee referred the charge
to the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) for a hearing. Dkt.
8-4. Mr. Jones signed the Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing
form and the Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO on
October 23, 2017. Dkt. 8-5 at 4, 5.
December 14, 2017, DHO Bradley held an Institution Discipline
Hearing for Incident Report No. 3045161. Dkt. 8-5 at 1. Mr.
Decker was verbally advised of his rights, was offered a
staff representative, and was also advised he could request
witnesses. He requested a staff representative, and one was
appointed. Mr. Jones called no witnesses. Mr. Jones admitted
to the charge, stating “I was in possession of a cell
hearing, the DHO found that Mr. Jones had violated Code 108,
Possession of a Hazardous Tool (Cellular Phone), and the
following disciplinary sanctions were imposed: disallowance
of 41 days good time credit, a 180-day forfeit of non-vested
good time credit, a 180-day loss of phone privileges, and a
$75.00 monetary fine. Dkt. 8-5 at 2. The findings were based
on the following evidence: the Incident Report, the photo
evidence of the phone, and Mr. Jones' own statement.
Id. The DHO issued the report on December 20, 2017,
and it was delivered to Mr. Jones on December 28, 2017.
Id. at 3.
Jones appealed to the Regional Level. Dkt. 8-6 at 1. Some
administrative errors were corrected in an Amended DHO Report
issued on February 12, 2018. Dkt. 8-7. The Regional Director
denied the appeal. Dkt. 8-6 at 5. Mr. Jones then appealed to
the Central Office. Dkt. 8-8 at 1-2. The Central Office
denied the appeal on July 5, 2018. Dkt. 8-8 at 3.