United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
TRIANDIOS K. COTY, Petitioner,
WENDY KNIGHT, Respondent.
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
R. SWEENEY II JUDGE
petition of Triandios Coty for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as ISF
18-10-0477 on October 31, 2018. For the reasons explained in
this Entry, Mr. Coty'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).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
October 18, 2018, Correctional Officer Cameron issued a
conduct report charging Mr. Coty with attempt or conspiracy
to conduct an unauthorized financial transaction in violation
of Code B-240/220. Dkt. 6-1. The conduct report states:
On 10-16-18 at approximately 0520 am [I] observed Offender
Coty Triandios in 18 south dayroom. Offender Coty resides in
18 north 21LA. I C/O Cameron approached offender [and] asked
what he was doing in 18 south. Offender Coty stated
‘I[']m collecting debt. I[']m gonna get
what[']s owed to me.' I C/O Cameron called for QRT to
remove offender. I notified offender of CAB and identified
offender by State issued I.D.
Coty was notified of the charge on October 25, 2018, when he
was served with the conduct report and the Notice of
Disciplinary Hearing (screening report). Dkts. 6-1 and 6-2.
Mr. Coty requested a lay advocate, who was later appointed,
but did not request any witnesses or evidence during
screening. Dkt. 6-2.
disciplinary hearing was conducted on October 31, 2018. Dkt.
6-4. The hearing officer noted Mr. Coty's statement that,
“It[']s not a Financial Transaction. [T]here is no
debt. The write up is not what its [sic] supposed to
be.” Id. The hearing officer found Mr. Coty
guilty of violating Code B-240/220 based on Mr. Coty's
statement and the conduct report. Id. Mr. Coty was
sanctioned with the deprivation of 60 days of earned credit
time, which was modified to 26 days based on availability.
Coty filed appeals to the Facility Head and the Final
Reviewing Authority. Dkt. 6-5; dkt. 6-6. Both appeals were
denied. Id. Mr. Coty then brought this petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Coty contends that (1) the conduct report was not signed
within the timeframe required by Indiana Department of
Correction (“IDOC”) policy and (2) that there was
insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's
finding of guilt.