United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
petition of Kenneth Johnson for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as BTC
18-06-0200. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Johnson'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
15, 2018, Sgt. S. Patrick wrote a conduct report in case BTC
18-06-0200 charging Mr. Johnson with offense A-123, Body
Fluid and Fecal Waste. The conduct report stated:
On 6/15/2018 at Appx. 4:30 PM offender Johnson 988475
urinated and defecated out of the bottom of the RHU-Holding
Cell while on constant observation, after previous bodily
fluid he had put under the door was cleaned up. Offender
Johnson 988475 clearly placed urine and feces in a location
unintended for the hygienic disposal of body waste.
Placing body fluid or fecal waste in a location unintended
for the hygienic disposal of body fluid or fecal waste and/or
placing body fluid or fecal waste in a location with the
intent that another person will touch or otherwise come in
contact with the body fluid or fecal waste. The word
“body fluid” as used here has the same definition
as set forth in Indiana Code 35-45-16-2.
Dkt. 9-6 at 1.
19, 2018, the screening officer advised Mr. Johnson of his
rights. Dkt. 9-2. Mr. Johnson refused to be screened or sign
either the conduct report or the screening form regarding his
offense. Dkts. 9-1, 9-2, 9-7, 9-8. The screening officer
entered a denial, assigned a lay advocate, and requested a
full hearing without waiving notice. Dkt. 9-2. Mr. Johnson
was given a copy of the Report of Conduct. Dkt. 9-1.
21, 2018, the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) held a
hearing. Dkt. 9-3. The DHO noted that Mr. Johnson refused to
be present at the hearing. Id. Correctional Officers
confirmed Mr. Johnson's refusal to attend the hearing.
Dkts. 9-3, 9-7, 9-8, 10. The DHO considered staff reports and
the statement of the offender in reaching his decision on the
charge, Dkt. 9-3. The DHO found Mr. Johnson guilty of
violating Rule A-123, explaining: “The DHO has reviewed
the conduct report and finds that it supports the charge of
123-A.” Id. Mr. Johnson was sanctioned with
the deprivation of 180 days of earned credit time.
time of Mr. Johnson's screening, he was classified as
Mental Health Code A. Dkt. 9-2. Code A means Mr. Johnson
suffered from no mental illness and was of sound mind. Dkts.
9-7, 9-8, 10. Mental health staff were notified of the