Rembert v. Superintendent
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Joseph Rembert. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/3/2015. (lhc)(cc: Rembert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOSEPH REMBERT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1873
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Petition under 28 U.S.C.
Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in State
Custody filed by Joseph Rembert, a pro se prisoner, challenging a
disciplinary determination made by a hearing officer at Indiana
State Prison (“ISP”) under case number I.S.P. 14-05-0272. For the
reasons set forth below, the court DENIES the petition (DE 1).
BACKGROUND
On May 25, 2014, Officer Taylor prepared a conduct report
charging Rembert with possession of a weapon. (DE 6-1.) The conduct
report stated as follows:
I, Ofc. Taylor on 5-25-15 at approx. 7:30 am was
inventorying Rembert #146478 property and when I lifted
Rembert’s cabinet underneath was a long piece of metal
which had been sharpened at the end.
(Id.)
On May 29, 2014, Rembert was notified of the charge. (DE 6-2
at 1.) The screening report reflects that he pled not guilty,
requested lay advocate, and requested a witness, Captain Yancy, but
no physical evidence. (Id.) On June 11, 2014, a hearing officer
conducted a disciplinary hearing and found Rembert guilty of the
charge of possession of a weapon. (DE 6-3 at 1.) Relying on staff
reports, witness statements, and photographs, the hearing officer
imposed a penalty of 60 days lost earned time credits. (Id. at 7.)
Rembert appealed to the facility head and the final reviewing
authority, but his appeals were denied. (DE 6-4, 6-5.)
DISCUSSION
When prisoners lose earned time credits in prison disciplinary
hearings, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees
them certain procedural protections. To satisfy due process, there
must be “some evidence” in the record to support the hearing
officer’s determination. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Rembert argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
a guilty finding. He claims that his cell was searched by Lt.
Dustin on May 24, 2014, and no weapon was found during that search.
Rembert points out that he did not return to his cell again before
Officer Taylor found a weapon in his cell the next day. So, Rembert
concludes, the weapon found could not have been his.
2
In reviewing a disciplinary determination 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.
In this case, there is ample evidence to support the hearing
officer’s determination. The conduct report written by Ofc. Taylor
recounted that he found a weapon hidden in Rembert’s cell. This is
sufficient evidence by itself. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786 (7th Cir.
1999) (conduct report alone provided some evidence to support
disciplinary determination). In addition, Officer Drabenstat stated
that he observed the discovery of the weapon that was hidden under
cabinet in Rembert’s cell.
Moffat, 288 F.3d at 988 (witness
statements
evidence).
constituted
some
Because
there
is
some
evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination, Rembert’s
argument is without merit. The fact that Officer Dustin did not
find the hidden weapon in a prior search of Rembert’s cell does not
change this conclusion.
3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition
(DE 1).
DATED: September 3, 2015
/s/RUDY LOZANO, 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?