Hensley v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING the writ of habeas corpus and DISMISSING case. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 8/6/2015. (lhc)(cc: Hensley)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JORDAN M. HENSLEY,
CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1248 PS
OPINION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case (DE 1) was filed by Jordan M. Hensley, a pro se prisoner,
challenging the prison disciplinary proceeding (WCC 13-05-337) held by the
Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) at the Westville Correctional Facility on June 11, 2013.
At that hearing, he was found guilty of Attempted Assault/Battery in violation of
A111/102. He was sanctioned with the loss of 365 days earned credit time and demoted
to Credit Class 3. The Respondent has filed a response (DE 8) and Hensley filed his
reply (DE 9). This case is now fully briefed.
Hensley lists four grounds for relief which the respondent describes as merely
being different ways of arguing that there was insufficient evidence for finding him
guilty. Hensley does not dispute this characterization and I agree with it. Thus,
Hensley’s sole ground for relief in this case is that there was insufficient evidence to
have found him guilty. However, “the findings of a prison disciplinary board [need
only] have the support of some evidence in the record. This is a lenient standard,
requiring no more than a modicum of evidence.” Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652
(7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Even a Conduct Report alone
can be sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d
784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). Such is the case here.
In the conduct report, Officer M. Hayes wrote that during an interview, Hensley
admitted “he had paperwork (Threat on Huff’s life) thru the Aryan Brotherhood
organization.” DE 8-1. Hensley’s admission that he had a gang contract to kill Huff is
sufficient to support finding him guility. Moreover, the officer’s testimony is
corroborated by a telephone recording of Hensley telling his father that “‘WE’ (Aryans)
are going to ‘kill’ Huff, Lonnie 145364 (Confirmed [Aryan Brotherhood] EX-President) if
he comes back to Westville.” (DE 8-1). Though Hensley argues that no one was actually
assaulted or battered, he was not found guilty of having succeeded, he was found guilty
of having conspired, planned, and attempted. Here, there is some evidence that Hensley
participated in the Aryan Brotherhood’s decision to target Huff for a gang hit because
he was a snitch (DE 8-3) who had crossed Hensley in the past. (DE 8-1). “The Federal
Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the
one reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985).
Hensley argues that the conduct report inaccurately described Huff as a civilian
when he was actually in federal custody. However, this is a distinction without a
difference. The charges against Hensley were not contingent on whether Huff was a
prisoner, a civilian, or a guard. He was a person against whom Hensley held a contract
for a gang hit. That is all that mattered. Hensley argues that a letter he wrote to Jacob
Fouts only asked him to look at a Facebook page – not to kill Huff. However, even if
true, that does not undermine that evidence that he also participated in the Aryan
Brotherhood’s decision to place a gang contract out to have Huff killed. Finally, Hensley
argues that during his phone call to his father, he only threatened to kill Huff – he did
not attempt to kill him. However, during the call he confirmed that it was not merely
him that was going to kill Huff, but all of the Aryan’s who were in agreement that Huff
would be killed. Thus, even though no attempt was made during the call, it was
nevertheless an admission that Hensley was conspiring with others to kill Huff and that
the Aryan Brotherhood had taken formal steps to do so. In deciding whether there was
sufficient evidence, I do not re-weigh the evidence. See McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d
784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). Rather, I merely examine the record to determine whether there
is some evidence pointing to the accused’s guilt. See Webb, 224 F.3d at 652. Here, there is
sufficient evidence that Hensley was guilty and habeas corpus relief will be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is
ENTERED: August 6, 2015.
s/Philip P. Simon
United States District Court
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?