United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
KATHERINE A. CORNELIUS INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, SENIOR JUDGE
petition of Patrick Garvey for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as CIC
17-08-0157. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Garvey's habeas 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); Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d
841, 845 (7th Cir. 2011) (same for federal inmates).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
August 11, 2017, Investigator J. Poer issued a Report of
Conduct (“Conduct Report”) charging Mr. Garvey
with a violation of Codes A111 and A113. Dkt. 10-1. The
Conduct Report states:
On 7/29/16 Central Office Investigators contacted me, Inv. J.
Poer, concerning a conspiracy to traffic controlled substance
Suboxone stirps through the mail into CIF. A Trafficking with
an Inmate-Civilian investigation was initiated. Phone calls
placed by offender Garvey were monitored. In the calls
offender Garvey provides instructions to his family members
regarding Suboxone strips that he is having mailed to his
brother's address. The package was intercepted by U.S.
Postal Inspectors. The package intended for Garvey's
brother's address was found to contain 60 Suboxone
strips. Garvey was going to have his sister package the
Suboxone stirps into a magazine and mail them into the
facility. The details supporting this investigation are
contained in Confidential Case File 16-CIC-0041. Please
review the case file to answer questions regarding this
Garvey was notified of the charge on August 15, 2017, when he
received the Conduct Report and the Screening Report. Dkts.
10-1, 10-2. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and requested
a lay advocate. Dkt. 10-2. Mr. Garvey asked to call Mike
Hughes, another inmate, as a witness. Id. Mr. Garvey
wanted to ask if he had his family send a magazine to Mr.
Hughes and if he had “fat girl” write to Mr.
Hughes. Id. This request was denied as irrelevant.
Id. Mr. Garvey also requested transcripts of phone
calls and any statements made about him regarding the
suboxone and “this case.” Id.
hearing was held August 18, 2017. Dkt. 10-3. Mr. Garvey
pleaded not guilty and did not provide a statement.
Id. After considering staff reports and the
confidential case file, the hearing officer determined that
Mr. Garvey had violated Codes A111 and A113. Id. The
sanctions imposed included the deprivation of 90 days of
earned credit time, a demotion of one credit class, and
imposition of a suspended sanction of a loss of 90 days of
earned credit time. Id.
Garvey filed an appeal to the facility head, which was denied
on September 22, 2017. Dkt. 10-4 at 1-2. He then appealed to
the Final Review Authority, who denied his appeal on November
30, 2017. Dkt. 10-4 at 3. After the denial of his appeal to
the Final Review Authority, he brought this petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Garvey presents three challenges to his disciplinary
proceeding. First, he challenges the denial of his request
for testimony from Offender Mike Hughes. Second, he alleges
that his due process rights were violated because he was not
allowed to see any of the evidence against him, including
transcripts of the phone calls. Finally, he alleges that the
investigation was untimely under Indiana Department of