United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
petition of Kenneth Johnson for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as BTC
18-06-0197. 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, Correctional Officer A. Zink wrote a conduct report
in case BTC 18-06-0197 charging Mr. Johnson with offense
B-213, Threatening. Dkt. 11-1. The Disciplinary Code for
Adult Offenders defines threatening as:
Engaging in any of the following: 1. Communicating to another
person an intent to physically harm, harass or intimidate
that person or someone else. 2. Communicating an intent to
cause damage to or loss of that person's or another
person's property. 3. Communicating an intent to
intentionally make an accusation that he/she knows is untrue
Department of Correction Adult Disciplinary Process Appendix:
Offenses (Jan. 1, 2018).
conduct report stated:
On 6/15/2018 Approx. 8:28 Offender Johnson DOC# 988475 said
to me Ofc. Zink that he was going to hold an AR to my head
while he raped my mother, my wife and my children. Then
Offender Johnson said that when he was done raping them he
was going to take me out to the woods and blow my brains out.
19, 2018, Mr. Johnson was advised of the report and of his
rights. Dkt. 11-2. Mr. Johnson refused to cooperate in the
screening or sign the forms, so the screener entered a plea
of not guilty, appointed a lay advocate, and gave copies of
the Report of Conduct and the Screening Report to Mr.
Johnson. Dkt. 11-2; dkt. 11-7; dkt. 11-8.
21, 2018, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) convened the
disciplinary hearing. Dkt. 11-3. Mr. Johnson refused to be
present at his hearing. Dkt. 11-3; dkt. 11-7; dkt. 11-8; dkt.
11-9. At the time of Mr. Johnson's screening, he was
classified as Mental Health Code A, which meant he had no
mental illness. Dkt. 11-7; dkt. 11-8; dkt. 11-9.
found Mr. Johnson guilty of offense B-213 based on the
conduct report, staff reports, and Mr. Johnson's
statement. Dkt. 11-3. As a result of the guilty finding, Mr.