Chestnut v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 19 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2:17-cv-00019-JPH-DLP |
| Parties | RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, Petitioner, v. CHARLES DANIELS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [REPORT NO. 2674169]
The Motion before this Court is Raymond Chestnut's latest attempt to challenge Incident Report No. 2674169. Chestnut has a demonstrated history of serially filing petitions for writs of habeas corpus challenging Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) proceedings, and then voluntarily dismissing them before a ruling on the merits. Of the three previous petitions he filed making the same challenge as raised in this present petition, none were decided on the merits. ECF No. 16 at 2-5 () and ECF No. 36-37 ()., By his Motion for Relief from Judgment in this case, which was dismissed for failure to properly exhaust, Chestnut continues to allege that he was not afforded due process during his disciplinary proceedings. ECF No. 1. On February 27, 2017, he supplemented his petition alleging that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive a copy of the Incident Report or notice of the charges before the hearing, that he did not have the opportunity to call witnesses or present documentary evidence, and that he never received a copy of the decision. ECF No. 7 at 2. Chestnut, however, initiated his petition before he had fully exhausted his administrative remedies related to it. Moreover, he was afforded all of the applicable due process rights and evidence supported the disciplinary findings, so he loses on the merits in any event.
The Respondent therefore respectfully requests that this Court deny him relief.
Staff became aware of Chestnut's illegal use of the mail and forgery on January 22, 2015, and issued Incident Report No 2674169 to Chestnut on the same day. ECF No 27-1 at 1 & 7.[1] The description of the incident was documented as follows:
On 01-22-2015, at approximately 0640, I opened an e-mail correspondence from the Northeast Regional Office Legal Department. This correspondence contained a copy of a DHO Report related to a hearing I conducted on inmate Chestnut, #13465-171, on 06-04-2013, regarding Incident Report Number (IRNO) 2449091. The correspondence requested that I verify the delivery date on the DHO report submitted as supporting documentation regarding a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal, signed and dated by Chestnut on 01-12-2015. I retrieved a copy of the DHO report delivered to Chestnut from the official record. Upon comparing the copy of the DHO report maintained in the official record with the one submitted to the Northeast Regional Office by Chestnut, I immediately determined the signature and delivery date to be fraudulent. The DHO report retrieved from the official record established the delivery date of the DHO report to Chestnut as 06-05-2013 by Ms. Inch, who was the DHO secretary at the time. The signature on the DHO report submitted to the Northeast Regional Office by Chestnut is illegible, and documents a delivery date of 01-09-2015. The illegible signature on the DHO report is not mine, nor is it that of Ms. Inch the former DHO secretary, or Ms. Flowers or Ms. Black, the current DHO secretaries. The delivery signature and date, therefore, is forged or fraudulent. Moreover, in the section of the DHO report titled “Report delivered to inmate” is hand written “CHESTNUT, R. #13465-171.” During the past 20 months I have conducted multiple DHO hearings and re-hearings, responded to multiple Requests for Administrative Remedy, and responded to voluminous civil litigation filed by Chestnut in U.S. District Court. As such, I am extremely familiar with inmate Chestnut's handwriting. I immediately recognized the handwriting next to the fraudulent signature on the DHO report submitted to the Northeast Regional Office by Chestnut as that of Chestnut. Accordingly, I have concluded Chestnut himself affixed the forged/fraudulent signature to the DHO report he submitted. The fraudulent delivery date on the report submitted by Chestnut, 01-09-2015, is also written in Chestnut's handwriting. Chestnut's actions in this case could result in new criminal charges as a result of violating 18 United States Code Chapter 47 - Fraud and False Statements, Section 1001, therefore resulting in the charge of Use of the Mail for an Illegal Purpose, Code 196.
ECF No 27-1 at 7. A copy of Incident Report No. 2674169 was delivered to Chestnut on January 22, 2015, at 10:37 a.m., giving Chestnut advanced written notice of the charges against him. Id. Chestnut was advised of his rights by Lt. D. Beachel on January 22, 2015, at 10:23 a.m., and Chestnut verbally acknowledged that he understood his rights. ECF No 27-1 at 8.
The record indicates that Chestnut had a fair attitude during the investigation of Incident Report No. 2674169. The record also shows that Chestnut declined the opportunity to make a statement by stating that he had “no comment.” Id. Chestnut was also afforded the opportunity to identify a witness, but declined. ECF No 27-1 at 8. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, Lt. D. Beachel found that the charged violations were warranted, and he found that there was sufficient evidence to move forward with the disciplinary process. Id. Lt. D. Beachel referred Incident Report No. 2674169 to the Unit Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) for further disposition. Id.
B. Chestnut's UDC Hearing for Incident Report No. 2674169
The Incident Report was then referred to the UDC for a hearing, which was conducted on January 23, 2015. ECF No 27-1 at 9. Chestnut made a statement that there was no evidence that he committed a prohibited act, and that the information in section 11 of the Incident Report was hearsay. ECF No 27-1 at 9 & 20. The UDC referred the matter to DHO for further hearing so that appropriate sanctions could be rendered, which sanctions are not available at the UDC level. ECF No 27-1 at 9.
On January 23, 2015, Chestnut was provided with a copy of the “Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing” form, which he refused to sign acknowledging receipt of this information. ECF No 27-1 at 11. Thus, staff completed the appropriate form documenting that the inmate was advised of his rights and that he refused to sign showing acknowledgment of these rights. ECF No 27-1 at 11. Specifically, the Inmate Rights at Discipline Hearing form informed Chestnut that he was being charged with a violation of the BOP rules and regulations and that the matter was referred to the DHO for disposition. Id. Chestnut was informed that he had the right: 1) to have a written copy of the charges against him at least 24 hours prior to appearing before the DHO; 2) to have a full-time staff member to represent him before the DHO; 3) to call witnesses (or present written statements of unavailable witnesses) and to present documentary evidence on his behalf; 4) to remain silent or to present a statement; 5) to be present during the disciplinary hearing except during a period of deliberation or when institutional safety would be jeopardized; 6) to be advised of the DHO's decision and the facts supporting that decision except where institutional safety would be jeopardized; and 7) to appeal the decision of the DHO within 20 calendar days of notice of the DHO's decision. Id.
On January 23, 2015, Chestnut was also provided with a copy of the “Notice of Discipline Hearing Before the DHO” form. ECF No 27-1 at 10. The record indicates that Chestnut requested P. McCloskey as his staff representative to be present at the DHO hearing. Chestnut also indicated at that time that he did not wish to call any witnesses. ECF No 27-1 at 10. C. Chestnut's DHO Hearing for Incident Report No. 2674169
On January 29, 2015, at 11:30 a.m., Chestnut appeared before the DHO regarding Incident Report No. 2674169. ECF No 27-1 at 18. The DHO noted that: 1) Chestnut was provided advanced written notice of the charge against him on January 22, 2015, at 10:37 a.m., by Lt. D. Beachel; 2) Chestnut was advised of his rights before the DHO on January 23, 2015, by Staff Member R. Marr; 3) Chestnut requested a staff representative and Ms. P. McCoskey appeared at the DHO hearing; and 4) Chestnut requested no witnesses. Id. The DHO also advised Chestnut of his rights before the DHO and Chestnut indicated that he understood his rights. Id. Chestnut denied the charges issued on Report No. 2674169. Id.
At the DHO hearing, Chestnut testified that the description of the incident was hearsay and inaccurate. ECF No 27-1 at 18. Chestnut: 1) requested to review the evidence; 2) requested to review “range video” for the date and time of the incident (also requested in Chestnut's handwritten statement received by the DHO in the institution mail on January 27, 2015); 3) denied that it was his handwriting on the report submitted to the Northeast Regional Office; 4) requested former DHO secretary, Ms. Inch, to appear as a witness; 5) requested a handwriting expert; and 6) requested a polygraph. Id.
The DHO declined to require Ms. Inch, former DHO secretary, to be present as a witness because the reporting officer identified Ms. Inch's signature to be authentic on the DHO report retrieved from the official record. ECF No 27-1 at 20-21. The DHO contacted the Special Investigation Services (“SIS”) Technician, Brian Wert, via e-mail on January 27, 2015, and inquired if video footage was still available for any time prior to January 12, 2015, the date that Chestnut dated Administrative Remedy 808050-R1. ECF No 27-1 at 30. The DHO further provided the housing...
To continue reading
Request your trial