Thomas v. McBride

Citation306 F.Supp.2d 855
Decision Date26 February 2004
Docket NumberNo. 3:03CV0789 AS.,3:03CV0789 AS.
PartiesMickey THOMAS, Petitioner v. Daniel McBRIDE, Respondent.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana

Mickey Thomas, Westville, IN, for Pro se.

Kelly B. Smith, Indiana Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

The Petitioner, Mickey Thomas (hereinafter "Thomas"), is an inmate at the Maximum Control Facility (MCF) in Westville, Indiana. Thomas is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by the State of Indiana.

Thomas, proceeding pro se, is currently before this Court seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thomas' writ for Habeas Corpus was filed October 23, 2003 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding conducted on June 11, 2003. A Response was filed on behalf of the Respondent by the Attorney General of Indiana on December 23, 2003. The Response demonstrates necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir.1982). Thomas thereafter filed a Traverse and Motion on January 5, 2004.

Thomas challenges the June 11, 2003 disciplinary hearing before the Conduct Adjustment Board ("CAB") in which Thomas was found guilty of attempting to traffick designated as MCC 03-06-0001. At the hearing the CAB reviewed a conduct report written by Internal Affairs Officer Whelan. The report was based on an investigation of an incident that was also written by Whelan. The CAB's determination of guilt resulted in a sanction against Thomas of six months deprivation of commissary, phone and recreation privileges, and one year of discipline segregation. The sanction further provided for a reduction of 445-days earned credit time and a one-step demotion in credit class, from Level 2 to Level 3. The relevant facts of the investigation and conduct reports are laid out below.

The reports together allege that Thomas approached a correctional official at MCC and offered the officer $250 to deliver tobacco, Everclear, and other prohibited items into the facility. Further, it is alleged that Thomas arranged for another inmate send $200 to a woman named Sara Carroll under the name of Bobby Biswell. The money sent to Ms. Carroll was for her to purchase he desired items and to pay the MCC official. However, the MCC official whom Thomas approached notified the appropriate staff of the offer and an investigation was begun. As part of the investigation, a recorded call was placed to Ms. Carroll. In the recorded conversation, Ms. Carroll revealed that she had expected the correctional officer to call but that she had taken the items back to the store and otherwise spent the $200 in question.

As a result of this call and other information gathered during the investigation a disciplinary hearing was held charging Thomas with attempting to traffick. Thomas received notice of the hearing on June 2, 2003 along with a copy of the conduct report and investigation report. Thomas requested that other offender listed in the report and Ms. Carroll be made available as witnesses. Further, Thomas asked for a copies of the all the documentary evidence mentioned in the conduct report for review. Among the requested documents were copies of notes regarding the trafficking from Thomas to the MCC official and a transcript of the recorded phone interview with Ms. Carroll.

The disciplinary hearing was held on June 16, 2003. At that time Thomas asked the CAB for a continuance so that the documentary evidence and witnesses requested could be produced. Thomas' request was denied and the hearing proceeded. Thomas made additional requests for the phone conversation to be played at the hearing or alternatively that the CAB review that conduct report `in camera'. These requests were also denied.

The CAB found Thomas guilty of attempting to traffic with staff at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing and imposed a sanction. The CAB indicated its decision was based on staff reports, Thomas' own statement, physical evidence and the investigation report, specifically two letters in the report written by Thomas to persons outside the prison regarding the attempt to traffick desired materials into the facility. Thomas appealed the finding of guilt and the sanctions to the Facility Head and to the Final Reviewing Authority. Neither appeal proved successful and having thus exhausted his administrative remedies Thomas now seeks Federal Habeas relief. Thomas asserts that the conduct of the CAB amounted to a denial of Due Process because 1) he was denied relevant witnesses without explanation; 2) the finding of guilt was not supported by any evidence presented during the disciplinary hearing; and 3) there was no meaningful explanation of the evidence or reasoning relied on in reaching the determination of guilt.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

"Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit court within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). "A prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if he is being held under a state court judgment obtained in violation of the Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also United States ex rel. Simmons v. Gramley, 915 F.2d 1128, 1131-32 (7th Cir.1990).

This Court's collateral review is guided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and the case law expounded in this Circuit. First, this Court must examine the record for alleged constitutional errors. Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1088, 109 S.Ct. 1552, 103 L.Ed.2d 855 (1989); see also Nelson v. McBride, 912 F.Supp. 403 (N.D.Ind., 1996). Second, this Court does not sit as a de novo trier of the CAB hearing nor does it sit as a Court of general common law review. Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1145 (7th Cir.1988). Finally, this Court does not sit to determine question of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). With these principals soundly in mind Thomas' Due Process claim are now taken up.

B. Due Process

A state prisoner in Indiana has a liberty interest in good-time credits earned and has a right to due process when sanctioned and deprived of this liberty interest. Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 719 (7th Cir.1996). Indiana prison inmates have a protected liberty interest in earned good time credits. Id.; Sweeney v. Parke, 113 F.3d 716, 719 (7th Cir.1997) (inmates loss of 180 days' good-time credit constitutes a deprivation of a liberty interest in good-time credits, and an inmate is entitled to due process protection if the State's action will inevitably affect the duration of the sentence); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (where state created right to good-time and recognized that its deprivation was a sanction authorized for major misconduct, prisoner's interest therein was sufficiently embraced within Fourteenth Amendment "liberty" to entitle him to those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the due process clause to insure that the state-created right was not arbitrarily abrogated).

Thomas' is entitled to clearly established federal procedural rights, including: (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 785 (7th Cir.1999); Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773-74, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Wolff, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935. In addition, an inmate has the right to be heard before an impartial decision maker. Gaither v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 817, 819 (7th Cir.2000). Finally, due process requires that the determination of guilt must be supported by "some evidence" which constitutes a standard "less exacting than the preponderance of evidence standard and requires only that the CAB's decision not be arbitrary or without support in the record." Id. Thomas was given advance notice of the charges against him.

1. Denial of Witness

"The Due Process Clause gives inmates the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence at a hearing that results in an extension of their incarceration time by demoting their credit-earning class." Pannell v. McBride, 306 F.3d 499, 502 (7th Cir.2002) citing Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 642 (7th Cir.2001). However, the right is not absolute and is limited when permitting a witness would be "unduly hazardous to institutional safety and correctional goals." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 566, 94 S.Ct. at 2980. In Wolff, the Court noted that prisoners' rights under the Due Process Clause are subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. Id. The potential disruption and interference with safety and swift punishment that calling witnesses may result in, leaves prisoner officials with the discretion to refuse to extend the right to call witnesses when doing such would be inconsistent with institutional safety and correctional goals. Id.; Superintendent Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768; Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir.1992).

Within this discretion due process requires that the prison officials state their reasons for refusing to call witnesses requested by an inmate at a disciplinary hearing. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495, 105 S.Ct. 2192, 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985). The reason may be explained as part of the administrative record in the disciplinary hearing or by testimony in court. Id."So long as the reasons are logically related to preventing undue hazards to `institutional safety or correctional goals', the explanation should meet the due process requirement outlined in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Chestnut v. Daniels
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • September 19, 2019
    ... ... Inst. v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); ... Jones , 637 F.3d at 845; Scruggs , 485 F.3d ... at 939; McPherson v. McBride , 188 F.3d 784, 785-86 ... (7th Cir. 1999); see, e.g. , Wolff v ... McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-71 (1974). Chestnut's ... decisions, but decide only whether the disciplinary committee ... violated the inmate's due process rights); Thomas v ... McBride , 306 F.Supp.2d 855, 859 (N.D. Ind. 2004) ... (“[T]his Court does not sit as a de novo trier of the ... ...
  • Williams v. Superintendent, Case No. 1:17-cv-1005-TWP-MJD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • August 15, 2017
    ...decisions, but decide only whether the disciplinary committee violated the inmate's due process rights); Thomas v. McBride, 306 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (N.D.Ind. 2004) ("[T]his Court does not sit as a de novo trier of the [disciplinary board's] hearing . . . ."); Hadley v. Peters, 841 F. Supp.......
  • Riggleman v. Krueger, 2:17-cv-00381-WTL-MJD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • March 5, 2018
    ...Court cannot review evidence that was not presented at the hearing or at least requested by the petitioner. Cf. Thomas v. McBride, 306 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (N.D. Ind. 2004) ("[T]his Court does not sit as a de novo trier of the [disciplinary board's] hearing . . . ."). There is no indication......
  • Chestnut v. Daniels
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • September 8, 2022
    ... ... Inst. v. Hill , 472 U.S ... 445, 454 (1985); Jones , 637 F.3d at 845; ... Scruggs , 485 F.3d at 939; McPherson v ... McBride , 188 F.3d 784, 785-86 (7th Cir. 1999); see, ... e.g. , Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-71 ... (1974). Chestnut's disciplinary ... decisions, but decide only whether the disciplinary committee ... violated the inmate's due process rights); Thomas v ... McBride , 306 F.Supp.2d 855, 859 (N.D. Ind. 2004) ... (“[T]his Court does not sit as a de novo trier of the ... ...
1 books & journal articles
  • U.S. district court: witness evidence due process.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 30, May 2004
    • May 1, 2004
    ...v. McBride, 306 F.Supp.2d 855 (N.D.Ind. 2004). A state prison inmate brought a habeas proceeding to challenge a finding of guilt at a prison disciplinary hearing. The district court denied habeas relief. The court held that the prison disciplinary board adequately explained its reasons for ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT