United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ERIC J. WILSON, Petitioner,
WENDY KNIGHT, Respondent.
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
Wilson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges
his conviction in a prison disciplinary proceeding identified
as CIC 18-03-0060. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
petition is 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
Wilson is an inmate at the Correctional Industrial Facility,
where the events underlying this habeas petition took place.
In November 2017, Mr. Wilson was the plaintiff in a civil
rights case in this Court. See Wilson v. Knight, No.
1:17-cv-01326-TWP-DML. On November 27, 2017, Officer Bruce
Schepper, the law library supervisor, wrote a conduct report
alleging that Mr. Wilson made a counterfeit order from this
Court and presented a request to have it printed on November
22, 2017. Dkt. 13 at 16 (ex parte). According to the
conduct report, the counterfeit document was purported to be
an order by Judge Pratt granting Mr. Wilson an extension of a
summary judgment briefing deadline. See Id. at 16,
21. Officer Schepper believed Mr. Wilson intended to use the
extended deadline as a basis to request additional time in
the law library. See Id. at 16.
document Mr. Wilson presented to Officer Schepper has been
filed ex parte. Several attributes of the document
would alert a reader familiar with this Court's written
orders that it was likely illegitimate. The caption states
that the action is proceeding in the “Southern District
of Indinan, Indianapolis Devision.”
Id. at 8. It repeatedly commits the same punctuation
• “The plaintiff alleges that he is not provided
sufficient time in his facilities law library . . .
• “This court finds that the existence of the
lapse in given time between the parties ability to
practice law ..... ”
• “In accordance with the plaintiffs
rights under the constitution . . . .”
• “Plaintiffs request for extension of
time is hereby granted . . . .”
See Id. The electronic docketing data in the header
of Mr. Wilson's document differs from the Court's
usual format. See Id. Finally, the document
presented on November 22, 2017, does not feature an image of
Judge Pratt's handwritten signature on the final page
like any other Order from this Court. Instead, it features a
“FILED” stamp on the first page with a signature
that appears to have been typed on a keyboard. See
Id. And the “FILED” stamp is dated November
23, 2017-a date that obviously had not occurred as of
November 22. Id.
review of the docket in this case also makes clear that the
document Mr. Wilson presented on November 22, 2017, was not
generated by the Court. The document is identified as filing
no. 24, which had already been docketed on September 1, 2017.
See Id. at 9. Additionally, the document's
header shows that it was filed on November 14, 2017, but the
docket shows that no documents were filed within eight days
of November 14. See Id. at 8; no.
Schepper recognized many of these features, contacted the
Court, and confirmed that the document Mr. Wilson presented
to him had not been docketed by Judge Pratt. Officer Schepper
drafted his conduct report and contacted Internal
Investigations, which asked him to refrain from filing the
conduct report so it could further investigate the
allegations against Mr. Wilson. See dkt. 13 at 3.
Ashley Mills completed that investigation. See Id.
at 2-4. Investigator Mills interviewed Mr. Wilson, who denied
ever seeing the document before. See Id. at 3.
However, Investigator Mills matched the signature on the
print request form used to print the document to Mr.
Wilson's signature on a different document. See
Id. Based on that investigation, Investigator Mills
completed a conduct report on March 5, 2018, that charged Mr.
Wilson with violating Code A-100, which punishes inmates'
violations of federal, state, or local law. Dkt. 10-1.
Investigator Mills determined that Mr. Wilson's conduct
amounted to “counterfeiting” in violation ...