United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JOSEPH F. CALLAHAN, Petitioner,
DUSHAN ZATECKY, Respondent.
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
petition of Joseph F. Callahan for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as ISR
18-06-0135. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Callahan'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
22, 2018, Sergeant Shaw wrote a Report of Conduct charging
Mr. Callahan with violating offense B-202, possession or use
of controlled substance. The conduct report states:
On 6-22-18 at the approx. time of 1:55 am I Sgt. A. Shaw was
conducting a cell search of Offender Joseph Callahan#25714 6
on 1B. I Sgt. A. Shaw found a smoking pipe with a unknown
substance in it on offender Callahan's cabinet.
A photograph was taken of the pipe in Mr. Callahan's
cell. Dkt. 9-2.
25, 2018, the screening officer notified Mr. Callahan of the
charge and served him with a copy of the conduct report and
the screening report. Dkt. 9-4. Mr. Callahan signed both
reports. Dkt. 9-1; dkt. 9-4. Mr. Callahan was notified of his
rights and pleaded not guilty. Dkt. 9-4. Mr. Callahan failed
to specify whether he requested any witnesses. Id.
He requested one piece of physical evidence: “smudge,
not a controlled substance.” Id. Based on Mr.
Callahan's “smudge” statement, the screening
officer emailed an investigator at the facility, who wrote in
response, “The item found on Offender Callahan DOC
25714 was identified as a homemade smoking device. I see no
reason this would be used for Native American
Services.” Dkt. 9-3.
hearing was conducted on July 2, 2018. Dkt. 9-5. Mr. Callahan
pleaded not guilty and made the following statement:
It was not a controlled substance. That was not what it was
used for. I asked for testing and that was not provided. I
use this to smudge. Body of the conduct does not support the
hearing officer found Mr. Callahan guilty after considering
staff reports, Mr. Callahan's statement, the email from
the investigator, and the photo. Id. The hearing
officer also noted that the investigator reported there was
only residue in the pipe, not enough substance to test.
Id. Due to the nature of the offense, Mr.
Callahan's attitude and demeanor during the hearing, and
the likelihood of the sanction having a corrective effect on
Mr. Callahan's future behavior, the hearing officer