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 Terrance Hood for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as ISR
18-05-0127. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Hood’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.App’x
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, Investigator Christopher Sanford wrote a conduct
report charging Mr. Hood with offense A-102, battery. Dkt.
17-1. The conduct report stated:
On the above date and approx. time offender Hood, Terrance
#883509 10-2B is seen on camera exiting his cell for dinner
chow line. Hood is seen moving towards the end of the range
towards offender Howard, Eddie #129850 17-2B as he exits his
cell. Hood is advancing on Howard, words are exchanged and
Hood lunges towards Howard with a stabbing motion with his
right hand. The offenders are seen fighting at the end of the
range for several minutes at the back of the range. Both
offenders stop fighting and move to the front of the range
and are no longer fighting.
1, 2018, Mr. Hood was notified of the charge and his rights.
Dkt. 17-2. Mr. Hood pleaded not guilty and requested a video
review. Id. He also requested notes that he said he
had when the incident took place. Dkt. 17-12, ¶ 4. The
notes could not be located. Id. Mr. Hood waived his
right to 24 hours’ advance notice of the charge before
the disciplinary hearing and did not request a lay advocate.
Dkt. 17-2. He requested Officer A. Ross, Officer C. Thompson,
and Officer E. Shehata as witnesses. Id. Officer A.
Ross provided the following statement:
On the above date, I was releasing the chow line on B-Block
in H cellhouse for dinner chow. I was standing in front of
the B-Block showers watching the line come down the stairs
when I saw offender Hood thrown backwards. I witnessed him
bleeding from the face and escorted him to the shakedown
booth. After the line was out offender Hood stated offender
Howard had assaulted him. Howard was on the 2B range and was
also bloody. I assisted Sgt. C. Wiley in cuffing Howard and
both offenders were escorted off unit.
C. Thompson provided the following statement: “I have
no knowledge of this incident.” Dkt. 17-4. Officer E.
Shehata was not present during the incident and therefore the
disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) denied the
request for his testimony. Dkt. 17-2.
disciplinary hearing for case ISR 18-05-0127 was initially
scheduled for May 25, 2018, but was continued to June 6,
2018. Dkt. 17-5. It was continued a second time to June 15,
2018, because of a staff shortage and because Mr. Hood added
a witness through facility mail. Dkt. 17-6. The hearing was
continued for a third time to June 26, 2018, due to a staff
shortage. Dkt. 17-7. The hearing was continued two more times
because of a staff shortage and because Mr. Hood requested
video evidence. Dkt. 17-8; dkt. 17-9.
hearing was conducted on July 11, 2018. Dkt. 17-10. Mr. Hood
testified, “Eddie had been threatening me. There were 2
notes turned into I.I. 3 hours prior to this incident that
show Eddie. I went to Eddie and told him to stop sending me
these bully ass notes. In the recorded I.I. interview he
speaks of the notes.” Id. Based on staff
reports, Mr. Hood’s statement, evidence from the
witnesses, a conversation with Internal Investigator Turney,
and the video evidence, the DHO found Mr. Hood guilty of
B-212, assault, a lesser offense than A-102 battery.
Id. Offense A-102 battery is defined as:
“[k]nowingly or intentionally touching another person
in a rude, insolent, or angry manner; or in a rude, insolent,