Lewis v. Superintendent
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER - DENYING the petition. Lewis has not demonstrated an entitlement to habeas relief. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 7/25/2014. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MONTAZ LEWIS,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-880 JM
OPINION and ORDER
Montaz Lewis, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 4.) In ISP #13-04-0307, a hearing
officer found Lewis guilty of attempted trafficking. (DE # 11-5.) The charge was
initiated on April 22, 2013, when Internal Affairs Officer J. Sikorski wrote a conduct
report stating as follows:
On March 28, 2013 a package was intercepted by the mailroom because it
was discovered to have a white powdery substance concealed within the
package; the package was originally intended to go to offender Lewis 172328.
The white powdery substance tested positive for Codeine (a narcotic pain
killer).
(DE # 11-1.) On the same date, Officer Sikorski also completed a report of investigation
providing more detail about the incident:
On March 28, 2013 I received a phone call from the mailroom; at which she
stated that she discovered a powdery white substance inside an envelope
sent through the mail to an offender. After retrieving the piece of mail from
the mail I conducted a preliminary field narcotics test on the white powdery
white [sic] substance and came back with a positive for codeine. Ms. Abram
contacted the shift supervisor at this time and asked that offender Lewis
172328 be placed on IDU pending investigation. On April 4, 2013 I
interviewed Lewis; and during the interview he denied having knowledge
that the package was supposed to be coming into him. At this time it is
substantiated that a package was intercepted by the mail room that was
originally intended for offender Lewis 172328. In the package there was a
white powdery substance that field tested positive for codeine.
For Further Details See IA CONFIDENTIAL file 13-ISP-0051-IA
(DE # 11-2.)
On April 26, 2013, Lewis was formally notified of the charge. (DE # 11-3.) He
pled not guilty, declined the assistance of a lay advocate, did not request any witness
statements, and as physical evidence requested “photos of the package and the white
powdery substance” as well as a “copy or photo of test results.” (DE # 11-3.) After a
postponement, a hearing was held on May 3, 2013. (DE # 11-5.) Lewis made the
following statement: “The person who sent these drugs to me a few weeks earlier sent
me photos, when I received them I immediately sent them back because I didn’t
recognize who the sender was. I never asked anyone to send me drugs. I have no idea
who the person is that sent this package to me. I never had possession of this.” (Id.)
Based on the evidence, the hearing officer found him guilty. (Id.) As a result he lost 90
days of earned-time credits, among other sanctions. (Id.) His administrative appeals
were denied. (DE # 11-6; DE # 11-7.)
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees prisoners certain procedural due
process rights in prison disciplinary hearings: (1) advance written notice of the charges;
(2) an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker; (3) an opportunity to
call witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense, when consistent with
institutional safety and correctional goals; and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder
2
of evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539 (1974). To satisfy due process, there must also be “some evidence” in the record
to support the guilty finding. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985).
Lewis first claims that he was denied evidence because the photos and test
results were not produced as he requested. (DE # 4 at 2.) A prisoner has a limited right
to present witnesses and evidence in his defense, consistent with correctional goals and
safety. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. A hearing officer has considerable discretion with respect
to witness and evidence requests, and may deny requests that threaten institutional
safety or are irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary. Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th
Cir. 2003). Furthermore, due process only requires access to witnesses and evidence that
are exculpatory. Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992).
“Exculpatory” in this context means evidence that “directly undermines the reliability
of the evidence in the record pointing to [the prisoner’s] guilt.” Meeks v. McBride, 81
F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir. 1996). The denial of the right to present evidence will be
considered harmless, unless the prisoner shows that the evidence could have aided his
defense. See Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2011).
Here, the record reflects that the hearing officer considered the evidence that
Lewis requested. (See DE # 11-5.) Lewis’s real complaint appears to be that he was not
allowed to see the evidence himself because it was part of the confidential internal
affairs file. He may have envisioned the hearing proceeding like a criminal trial, but
3
“[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full
panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff, 418 U.S.
at 556. The hearing officer was not required to produce physical evidence to support the
charge, follow the formal rules of evidence, or permit him to confront the adverse
evidence and witnesses. Piggie, 342 F.3d at 666 (inmate had no right to crossexamination at disciplinary hearing); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 637 (7th Cir. 2000)
(formal rules of evidence do not apply at prison disciplinary proceeding).
Furthermore, unlike in a criminal trial, “prison disciplinary boards are entitled to
receive, and act on, information that is withheld from the prisoner and the public[.]” See
White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir. 2001). Due process does require that
the confidential information bear sufficient indicia of reliability. Whitford v. Boglino, 63
F.3d 527, 535 (7th Cir. 1995). This court has reviewed the confidential file and, without
revealing its contents, concludes that it contains reliable evidence of Lewis’s guilt. To
the extent Lewis believes the contents of the file had any exculpatory value, the hearing
officer considered this evidence in reaching her decision, which is all that Lewis was
entitled to under Wolff. See White, 266 F.3d at 768 (prisoner’s rights were not violated
when evidence he claimed was exculpatory was considered by the disciplinary board,
4
even though he was not permitted to view this evidence himself for security reasons).
Accordingly, this claim is denied.1
In his remaining claim, Lewis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. (DE # 4
at 2.) In reviewing a disciplinary proceeding for sufficiency of the evidence, “courts are
not required to conduct an examination of the entire record, independently assess
witness credibility, or weigh the evidence, but only determine whether the prison
disciplinary board’s decision to revoke good time credits has some factual basis.”
McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). “[T]he relevant question is
whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached
by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56 (emphasis added). A habeas court
will overturn the hearing officer’s decision only if “no reasonable adjudicator could
have found [the prisoner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence presented.”
Henderson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1994).
Here, the record contains two staff reports and an internal affairs file detailing
how drugs were found hidden in a package addressed to Lewis. Nevertheless, in
Lewis’s view, he could not be found guilty because there was no direct evidence that he
directed someone to send him the package. However, a hearing officer is permitted to
1
The court notes that in his traverse, Lewis appears to claim that he also wanted to present evidence
showing that a few weeks prior to this incident he sent back a piece of mail because he did not know the
sender. (DE # 19 at 4.) A traverse is not the place to be asserting new claims for the first time. See RULE 2(C)(1)
OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES (providing that all grounds for relief must be contained in the
petition). Regardless, Lewis did not request this evidence at screening (see DE # 11-3), and he cannot establish
a due process violation based on the hearing officer’s failure to consider evidence he did not properly request.
See Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922, 925 (7th Cir. 2002).
5
rely on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. See Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341,
345 (7th Cir. 1992). Although Lewis denied knowing anything about the package, the
hearing officer was not required to credit his statement. Instead it was her job to weigh
the relative credibility of the witnesses and evidence. For purposes of this court’s
review, the evidence does not have to point to only one possible conclusion; the
question is solely whether there is some evidence to support the hearing officer’s
decision. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. Based on the record, the court cannot say that the
hearing officer’s decision was arbitrary or without evidentiary support. Id. (“Although
the evidence in this case might be characterized as meager, and there was no direct
evidence identifying any one of three inmates as the assailant, the record is not so
devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary board were without support or
otherwise arbitrary.”); Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002) (witness
statements constituted some evidence); McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786 (conduct report alone
provided some evidence to support disciplinary determination). Accordingly, Lewis
has not demonstrated an entitlement to habeas relief.
For these reasons, the petition (DE # 4) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 25, 2014
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
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?