United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
petition of Gary Miller, Jr., for a writ of habeas corpus
challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No.
NCF 18-08-0090. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr.
Miller's habeas petition must be denied.
in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits,
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004)
(per curiam), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v.
Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001), without
due process. The due process requirement is satisfied with
the issuance of advance written notice of the charges, a
limited opportunity to present evidence to an impartial
decision-maker, a written statement articulating the reasons
for the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it,
and “some evidence in the record” to support the
finding of guilt. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974); Piggie v.
Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v.
Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Disciplinary Proceeding
August 16, 2018, Sgt. Anderson charged Miller with offense
B-215, unauthorized possession of property:
On the above date & approx. time I, Sgt. Anderson, was
conducting a search of Off. Miller (232853) when I did find
him to be in possession of “legal mail” belonging
to Off. Paterson (260210) & “legal mail”
written by Off. Wooden (945995) to be processed by the above
stated Offender. This Offender does not have approval to be
in possession of another offender's legal mail. He was
advised of this conduct.
August 17, 2018, the screening officer notified Mr. Miller of
the charge, which had been changed to offense B-247,
possession or solicitation of unauthorized personal
information. The screening officer provided Mr. Miller copies
of the conduct and screening reports. Id.; dkt.
11-2. The screening officer notified Mr. Miller of his rights
and Mr. Miller pleaded not guilty. Dkt. 11-2. Mr. Miller
requested a lay advocate, and one was appointed to him. He
did not request any evidence but did request inmates Paterson
and Wooden as witnesses. Id.
Wooden's witness statement provided, “This man was
going to help me to do my (Haib) for Court. We was going to
the Law Lib. Together, this is the only Reason why I gave him
my name. Thank you!” Dkt. 11-4. Inmate Paterson stated
that, “I Mr. Paterson had went up to library working on
my Habe [sic] and had Been talking to a few people up there
to cite case logs [sic]. This man was one of them as He had
been employed as a lay advocate in the library when I started
my Habe. I Believe full heartedly His intentions were good to
return my paperwork and that He had no malicious
intentions.” Dkt. 11-5.
August 20, 2018, the disciplinary hearing officer held the
hearing. Mr. Miller pleaded not guilty and stated that,
“I was helping these guys out because I am good at it.
Sgt. Anderson put there DOC numbers in the cond. report. CAB
appeals are not legal work.” Dkt. 11-6. The hearing
officer found Mr. Miller guilty of offense B-247
“[b]ased on cond. report, evidence, offender and
witness statements, Sgt. Anderson found items on him. This is
the 2nd time he has done this but first cond. Report.”
Id. The hearing officer sanctioned Mr. Miller to a
30-day loss of privileges and a 60-day loss of good-time
Miller appealed to Facility Head and the IDOC Final Reviewing
Authority, both of which were denied. He then brought this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Miller raises three grounds in support of his habeas
petition: 1) the Adult Disciplinary Procedures handbook
states that disciplinary hearing appeals are not considered
legal work; 2) Sgt. Anderson put the other offender's
IDOC numbers on the conduct report, in contradiction of him
being written up for being in possession of personal