Williams v. Superintendent
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Roosevelt Williams. Respondent ORDERED to file documentation by 11/19/2015, showing that the guilty finding in WCU 12-01-493 has been VACATED and Petitioner's earned credit time restored. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 10/5/15. (cc: Roosevelt Williams). (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-166-PPS
OPINION AND ORDER
Roosevelt Williams was a prisoner at the Westville Correctional Facility when he
was found guilty in WCU 12-01-493 of Possessing an Electronic Device in violation of
prison rule B-207. As a result, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer docked him 60 days of
credit time that he had previously earned. The Conduct Report informed Williams that,
“On above date (1-20-12) at approx. 6 pm I was going through Offender Williams (974618)
photo albums when I found two micro SD cards in Polaroid pictures. I confiscated the
property and turned it into IA [Internal Affairs].” DE 11-1 at 1. So the SD cards were the
contraband that got Williams into hot water. An SD card is a “secure digital” card that is
an ultra small memory card designed to provide electronic memory in small sizes such as
those used in digital cameras.
See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SD_Card.html (Last visited October 5, 2015).
Williams has always denied that the micro SD cards were his. What is odd about this
case is that there is no indication that the hearing officer looked at the images on the SD
card which presumably he could have readily done. This would have established what
images were on the card to help ascertain which offender it belonged to. What’s more,
Williams argued that he could prove that the SD cards were not his because the picture
album they were found in did not belong to him either. Evidently, they were photos of
someone else’s family. Williams says that his belongings and the belongings of two other
inmates were somehow commingled when they were all searched together as a part of their
transfer out the Indiana State Prison.
When Williams was screened on this charge, he requested “Pictures from IA” as
physical evidence to prove that he was not guilty. DE 11-3 at 1. The pictures he was
requesting were the Polaroid pictures in which the micro SD cards were found. Based on
the Conduct Report, quoted above, it appeared as if pictures were part of the confiscated
property that was sent to Internal Affairs. Williams “requested the pictures from I.A. to
prove that those micro SD cards was not located in his photo albums, thus Mr. Williams
family and friends would not have been found in those pictures thus proving Williams
claims.” DE 1 at 6-7.
As it turned out, the evidence only included the SD cards and not the photos or
photo album that the SD cards were found near. DE 11-2. It appears that neither the photo
albums nor the Polaroid pictures were confiscated. Williams was unaware of this.
Nevertheless, an inmate has the right to present relevant exculpatory evidence. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Here, the requested Polaroid photos were relevant and
potentially exculpatory. Though he wrote that he wanted the photos from Internal Affairs,
what he really wanted, really needed, and was really asking for were the Polaroid photos.
2
His mention of Internal Affairs was not a limitation on his request, it was merely an
indication of where he reasonably believed the Polaroid photos to be located. It did not
matter whether Internal Affairs had them or not. He had the right to request that the
hearing officer obtain and consider relevant exculpatory evidence. He made the request,
but the photos were neither sought nor reviewed. That was a due process violation.
Because he was denied due process, habeas corpus will be granted on this ground.
Williams also raises two other grounds, but neither are additional reasons for
granting habeas corpus. He argues that the hearing officer was biased because the hearing
was not recorded. “[T]he constitutional standard for impermissible bias is high,” Piggie v.
Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003), and an adjudicator is entitled to a presumption of
“honesty and integrity” absent clear evidence to the contrary. See id. Prison disciplinary
hearings are not formal and they are not recorded or transcribed. Records of their
proceedings are very limited. Due process does not require that testimony be recorded the
way it is in a criminal trial. It merely requires that the fact finder provide a written
explanation of its findings. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. Thus the lack of a recording is not proof
of bias. Though Williams argues (in Ground Three) that he was denied a written
explanation, that requirement is “not onerous” and to satisfy due process “[t]he statement
need only illuminate the evidentiary basis and reasoning behind the decision.” Scruggs v.
Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the Disciplinary Hearing Report adequately
explains that the reason for finding him guilty was “C/R [conduct report] & photocopies
3
of evidence support a Class B 207 guilty decision as well as the admission of having a
phone.”
For these reasons, Williams’ petition for writ of habeas corpus [DE 1] is GRANTED.
The Respondent is ORDERED to file documentation by November 19, 2015, showing that
the guilty finding in WCU 12-01-493 has been VACATED and Roosevelt Williams’ earned
credit time restored.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 5, 2015.
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?