Johnson v. Superintendent

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 10 Amended Complaint filed by Dennis L Johnson, Jr; DIRECTING the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 5/23/2013. ***Civil Case Terminated (cc: Dennis L Johnson, Jr) (lyb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DENNIS L. JOHNSON, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Miami
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-479 PS

OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Dennis Johnson, a prisoner confined at the Miami Correctional Facility,
submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and an amended
petition, dealing with loss of earned credit time at a prison disciplinary hearing. In my initial
review of the amended petition I dismissed ground two of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because it only alleged a violation of state law (DE 11).
That left ground one, sufficiency of the evidence, which I now take up.
First, a brief summary of the facts as alleged by Correctional Sergeant Trever Heishman
in a conduct report charging the Petitioner with assault/battery by inflicting serious bodily injury:
On above date and approx. time I Sgt. Heishman was searching the morning
kitchen workers in Phase 1 ODR before release and during the search of Offender
Johnson Dennis 974874 I found what appeared to be a cell phone. The offender
rushed into the staff bathroom in an attempt to flush the contraband. I followed
the offender in an attempt to prevent him from flushing what he had. During the
struggle the offender pushed me into the doorframe of the bathroom resulting in a
cut on my back and me hitting my elbow on the wall. I was attempting to restrain
the offender and he broke the seat off the toilet and we went to the floor. I applied
reverse upper scarf hold while on the floor to restrain the offender. The offender
continued to resist by pulling and scratching at my right arm that resulted in
further injury. Once QRT staff arrived he continued to resist by pulling his arms
away from Sgt. Click and Officer Kochensparger. They were able to apply
restraint even with him resisting.

(DE 17-7). Attached to the Conduct Report were photographs depicting the scene of the incident,
including a broken toilet seat, along with photographs of Sergeant Heishman’s injuries (DE 178). Sergeant Heishman’s injury report reflected he suffered from a cut on his mid-back, another
cut on his right arm and a contusion on his right elbow, for which he was provided medical care
(DE 17-2).
Where prisoners lose good time credits at prison disciplinary hearings, the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees them certain procedural protections, including (1)
advance written notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial
decisionmaker; (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in their
defense when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals; and (4) a written
statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). Only “some evidence” has to support the
decision of the prison disciplinary board. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
On May 30, 2012, the disciplinary hearing officer conducted a hearing and found
Johnson guilty of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury (DE 17-13). The sanctions
imposed included a written reprimand, forty-five days telephone and commissary loss, financial
restitution, 180 days in disciplinary segregation, 180 days earned credit time deprivation and
credit class demotion from Class I to Class II (Id.). The Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the
facility head and the Indiana Department of Correction final reviewing authority (DE 17-14, 1715, and 17-16).
Johnson asserts in his amended petition that “the evidence relied upon to find me guilty
of a class A-102 [offense] was insufficient” (DE 10 at 8). But as noted above, the amount of
evidence needed to support a finding of guilt in prison disciplinary hearings is very modest; there
2

need only be “some evidence to support the decision of the prison disciplinary board.” Hill, 472
U.S. at 455. A reviewing court must uphold a finding of guilt if “there is any evidence in the
record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-6
(emphasis added). Even the conduct report alone may be sufficient evidence to support a
finding of guilt. See McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). This meager
standard makes it very difficult for an inmate to make much headway when challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence.
In this case, according to a report filed by Sergeant Heishman, Heishman stated that he
was conducting routine searches of the prison kitchen workers, and that when he searched
Johnson he found what appeared to be a cellphone (DE 17-4). Johnson then fled to a nearby
bathroom and attempted to flush the contraband down the toilet (Id.). When Heishman
attempted to stop Johnson from disposing of the contraband, Johnson pushed him into the
doorframe injuring him, and then pulled and scratched at his right arm, causing further injury
(DE 17-2; 17-4 17-13). Photographs were taken of Sergeant Heishman’s injuries (DE 17-8 at 48), which confirm that Sergeant Heishman suffered the injuries he described in his conduct
report as a result of this incident.
Johnson asserts in his traverse that Sergeant Click’s report to the Superintendent (DE 173) and his incident report (DE 17-5), as well as Sergeant Kochensparger’s witness statement (DE
17-6), did not mention the struggle described by Sergeant Heishman, and that inmate Robert
Baxton said in his witness statement that he saw Sergeant Heishman escorting Johnson out of the
bathroom with Johnson in a choke hold and that “Johnson kept saying he wasn’t trying to fight
with him” (DE 17-11). Johnson argues that these statements contradict Sergeant Heishman’s
version of events and “completely undermines the validity of the conduct report . . .” (DE 21 at
3).
3

Contrary to Johnson’s assertion, Sergeant Click’s report to the Superintendent does state
that “[u]pon arriving [at the scene], Sgt. Heishman was on the ground with an offender. While
attempting to physically control the offender, he was pulling his arms away and attempting to get
away from Sgt. Heishman completely” (DE 17-3). And as for the statements of Sergeant
Kochensparger and Baxton, they simply establish that they were not present when the incident
began. Sergeant Kochensparger stated that when he arrived Sergeant Heishman already “had
offender Johnson . . . secured on the ground” (DE 17-6). Baxton stated that the first thing he
saw was Sergeant Heishman bringing Johnson out of the bathroom (DE 17-11). None of these
statements conflict with or undermine Sergeant Heishman’s statement that Johnson fought with
him and injured him when they first went into the bathroom. And even if they did contradict
Sergeant Heishman’s statement, it would not mean that Heishman’s account of what happened
would somehow no longer be some evidence of Johnson’s guilt.
Recall that I must uphold the finding of guilt if “there is any evidence in the record that
could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56.
Sergeant Heishman’s conduct report, which is based on his personal observations, states that
Johnson attacked him when he attempted to prevent Johnson from flushing contraband down a
toilet and this plainly constitutes “some evidence” to support the decision of the prison
disciplinary board. Id. Sergeant Heishman’s conduct report also states that he suffered injuries
as a result of Johnson’s actions, and the photographs taken of Sergeant Heishman after the
incident (DE 17-8 at 4-8) confirm that he did receive injuries as a result of the incident with
Johnson. The conduct report and photographs are sufficient to support the disciplinary hearing
board’s finding of guilt in this case.

4

For the foregoing reasons, I DENY the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus [DE
10] and DIRECT the Clerk to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 23, 2013
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5