Watkins v. Superintendent

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Ezra Watkins. Clerk DIRECTED to enter judgment. Respondent ORDERED to file documentation by 5/30/2017 showing that the guilty finding in ISP 15-05-0210 has been vacated and Petitioner's earned credit time restored. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/5/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
EZRA WATKINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-062

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 Seeking Review of a Prison Disciplinary Sanction, filed by
Ezra Watkins, a pro se prisoner, on February 8, 2016. Here, Watkins
challenges a disciplinary determination made by a hearing officer
at the Indiana State Prison (“ISP”) under case number ISP 15-050210. For the reasons set forth below, the Court:
(1) GRANTS the habeas corpus petition (DE #1);
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment; and
(3) ORDERS the Respondent to file documentation by May 30,
2017, showing that the guilty finding in ISP 15-05-0210 has been
vacated and Ezra Watkins’ earned credit time restored.

BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2015, Correctional Officer M.A. Cahill prepared a
conduct

report

charging

Watkins

with

Security

Threat

Group

Activity. (DE #7-1.) The conduct report states:
On 5-27-15 I c/o Cahill was assigned to Tower 11. At 1350
hrs. I observed J3 Watkins DOC #110511 displaying a large
blue piece of cloth which was hanging from his right
pocket. I had observed him exhibit this behavior
repeatedly over the past few days I worked. When he
noticed I was watching him, he took the cloth in his
right hand and defiantly twirled it in a circle over his
head repeatedly. As a result of his behavior & exhibition
I contacted Investigator Abram who confirmed that J3
Watkins was affiliated with the Folks and his display of
colors was indeed STG activity.
(Id.)
On May 27, 2015, Watkins was notified of the charge of
Security Threat Group (“STG”) Activity and served with a copy of
the conduct report and the screening report. (DE #7-6.) The
screening report reflects that he pled not guilty and requested a
lay advocate. He did not request to call any witnesses, but asked
for “all material from I.A. showing gang affiliation.” (Id.)
On June 1, 2015, a hearing officer conducted a disciplinary
hearing. At the hearing, Watkins’s comment was, “Had towel for 12
yrs. He asked about the towel in the morning. I knew he was already
profiling me - I threw it on the ground to show I’m not affiliated.
I got no problem if they would confiscate it.” (DE #7-8.) In an email, Investigator Abram noted that “Gangster Disciples are said to
wear blue and black as their color. In addition, ‘folks’ gangs all
wear

their

identifiers

to

the

-2-

right

side

indicating

gang

affiliation to this allegiance.” (DE #7-4.) Sgt. J. Schymanoske
provided a written statement:
Prior to Ofc. Cahill’s observation at approx. 1350 I had
asked J3 Watkins DOC# 110511 not to display his blue
towel hanging from his pocket. When I confronted him he
denyed [sic] any STG activity before I even mentioned the
possibility of any STG connection. He also confronted me
about it after throwing his towel down on the ground in
checkpoint #2 after Ofc. Cahill seen him @ 1350.
(DE #7-2.) Relying on staff reports and a picture of the towel, the
hearing officer found Watkins guilty of STG activity. He imposed a
penalty of 30 days lost earned time credits. (Id.) Watkins appealed
to the facility head and the final reviewing authority. (DE #7-9;
DE #7-10.) The final reviewing authority modified the charge to
Disorderly Conduct in violation of Code B236. (DE #7-10.)

DISCUSSION
When

prisoners

lose

earned

disciplinary hearing, they are

time

credits

in

a prison

entitled to certain protections

under the Due Process Clause: (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 a
fact

finder

of

evidence

relied

on

and

the

reasons

for

the

disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974).
To satisfy due process, there must also be “some evidence” to

-3-

support the hearing officer’s decision. Superintendent, Mass. Corr.
Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Here, Watkins raises two claims, including that there was
insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was guilty of
disorderly conduct. 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.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,
455-56 (1985). The 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).
Watkins was found guilty of Disorderly Conduct B-236, which is
defined

as

“exhibiting

disruptive

and

violent

conduct

which

disrupts the security of the facility or other area in which the
offender is located.” (DE #7-11.) Again, the conduct report states
that “Watkins took the cloth in his right hand and defiantly
twirled it in a circle over his head repeatedly.” (DE #7-1.) A

-4-

conduct alone can be sufficient evidence to support a finding of
guilty. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786. However, in order to do so,
“the report [must have] describe[d] the alleged infraction in
sufficient

detail

[and

leave]

no

question

that

the

conduct

described would violate the prison rule.” Id. The conduct report
here is not sufficient to show that Watkins engaged in disorderly
conduct,

because

it

contains

no

facts

showing

that

Watkins

exhibited violent conduct. See Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 390
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (recognizing that crimes of violence include
acts that can result in serious bodily injury); see also Black’s
Law Dictionary Online http://thelawdictionary.org/violence/ (last
visited March 27, 2017, noting that the term violence is synonymous
with physical force). Tellingly, nothing in the conduct report
indicates Ofc. Cahill feared for his safety or was in danger of
being hit by the towel. Instead, Ofc. Cahill wrote the conduct
report because he believed that Watkins was engaging in gang
activity. However, the respondent now concedes that Watkins was not
engaging in gang activity. Thus, there are no facts in the conduct
report establishing that Watkins’ twirling the cloth over his head
exhibited violent conduct.
The respondent attempts to fill this void by pointing to Sgt.
Schymanoske’s statement, which reveals that Watkins later threw the
towel on the ground and confronted Sgt. Schymanoske. (DE #7-2.)
However, there is no indication that Watkins was provided with a

-5-

copy of Sgt. Schymanoske’s statement prior to the hearing. It does
not appear to have been attached to the conduct report nor does it
seem to have been given to Watkins along with the screening report.
Because of that, the Court cannot consider Sgt. Schymanoske’s
statement to be part of the charge.1 Indeed, his statement concerns
Watkins’ actions toward him, which involves a different guard, at
a different location and at a different time than described in the
conduct report. Under Wolff, if jail officials wanted to charge
Watkins based on his actions involving Sgt. Schymanoske, then
Watkins was entitled to advanced written notice of that charge. But
they did not. They only charged him based on his conduct observed
by Ofc. Cahill.
While it is not entirely clear why Watkins twirled the towel
over his head, it was unreasonable to conclude that his doing so
amounted to “exhibiting violent conduct” based on the record before
the Court. Accordingly, there is not “some evidence” that Watkins
engaged in disorderly conduct under B-236.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
(1) GRANTS the habeas corpus petition (DE #1);
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment; and

1

As a threshold matter, this statement is ambiguous because it is unclear
what transpired between Sgt. Schymanoske and Mr. Watkins.

-6-

(3) ORDERS the Respondent to file documentation by May 30,
2017, showing that the guilty finding in ISP 15-05-0210 has been
vacated and Ezra Watkins’ earned credit time restored.

DATED: April 5, 2017

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

-7-