United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND
DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNTTS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
prison inmate Michael Carrico petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus challenging a prison disciplinary sanction imposed in
disciplinary case number ISR 18-06-0030. Mr. Carrico's
motion for leave to file a belated reply, dkt. , is
granted. For the reasons explained in this
Order, Mr. Carrico's habeas petition is
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
4, 2018, Indiana Department of Correction
(“IDOC”) Correctional Officer Sgt. B. Martz wrote
a Report of Conduct charging Mr. Carrico with rioting, a
violation of Indiana Adult Disciplinary Code 103. Dkt. 7-1.
The Report of Conduct states:
On the above date and approx. time Ofd. Carrico Michael
#106495 was given the order to leave the G.C.H. rec pad[.]
Ofd Carrico refused this order and encouraged 13 other Ofds.
to protest the operations of G.C.H. by refusing to leave the
G.C.H. rec pad
Id. Mr. Carrico was notified of the charge on June
7, 2018, when he received a copy of the screening report.
Dkt. 7-2. He pled not guilty. Id.
Carrico asked to call Officer Flockhart, Lt. Simone, and
Counselor D. Arnold as witnesses. Id.; Dkt. 7-3. The
witnesses provided written statements in lieu of live
testimony. Dkts. 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6. Officer Flockhart stated
that Mr. Carrico had asked to speak to a lieutenant or
captain at the beginning of rec and that he advised the
sergeant of Mr. Carrico's request. Dkt. 7-4. Counselor
Arnold stated that Mr. Carrico “wanted to speak to
someone other than Lt. Simone to address certain issues
[t]hat they felt had not been corrected in (illegible) and
they would not come of[f] the rec pad till then.” Dkt.
7-5. Lt. Simone stated that Mr. Carrico had “refused to
cuff up and leave the rec pad after his allotted recreation
was over until he could speak with a lieutenant, other than
myself, or a captain.” Dkt. 7-6.
hearing was held on June 11, 2018. Dkt. 7-7. Mr. Carrico told
the hearing officer:
It clearly wasn't me. Martz came to me and said the
report wasn't written until after 24 hrs from when it
happened. Martz also said Major Conyers said they had to
write this. Why do I feel like I'm getting the shaft?
Flockhart said it (illegible). Martz said its his (illegible)
and he had to follow orders.
Dkt. 7-7. The hearing officer considered Mr. Carrico's
statement, the Report of Conduct, and evidence of witnesses
and found him guilty. Id. Mr. Carrico received a
365-day deprivation of earned credit time and a demotion in
credit class.” Id.
Carrico appealed to the Facility Head and the IDOC Final
Reviewing Authority. Dkts. 7-8, 7-9. He argued that the
evidence was insufficient to prove he was guilty of rioting,
other prisoners who remained on the recreation pad longer
than he did were punished less severely, and the Report of
Conduct was not completed within 24 hours of the incident and
was backdated, in violation of IDOC policy. Id.
These appeals were denied. Dkts. 7-8 and 7-10. Mr. Carrico
then brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.