Hawthorne v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/21/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jld)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO. 3:16-cv-651-RLM-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Kyran Hawthorne, a prisoner representing himself, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 16-07-364) in which a
Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of assault in violation of Indiana
Department of Correction policy B-212. Mr. Hawthorne was sanctioned with the
loss of 30 days earned credit time. Mr. Hawthorne identifies two grounds in his
petition, but each ground challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to find
In the disciplinary context, “the 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, 455-456 (1985). “In
reviewing a decision for some 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) (quotation marks omitted).
[T]he 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. Even meager proof
will suffice, so long as the record is not so devoid of evidence that the
findings of the disciplinary board were without support or otherwise
arbitrary. Although some evidence is not much, it still must point to
the accused’s guilt. It is not our province to assess the comparative
weight of the evidence underlying the disciplinary board’s decision.
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks, citations,
parenthesis, and ellipsis omitted). A conduct report alone can be sufficient
evidence to support a finding of guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d at 786.
Mr. Hawthorne was charged with violating IDOC B-212, which is defined as,
“[c]omitting a battery/assault upon another person without a weapon or inflicting
.pdf. The conduct report charged Mr. Hawthorne as follows:
On 7-25-16 at approx 12:32 pm I Ofc. J. Cowe was
[unreadable] Offender Freeman, DCH 507 West from the counsel’s
office. Offender Hawthorn, DW-506 DOC 179916 had demanded to
see the counselor and I responded that she is busy and had been told
by her and me that the issue is being taken care of by her. As I was
leaving the 500 west range, Offender Hawthorne #179916 threw a
tray on the ground at me which hit my [unreadable].
ECF 7-1 at 1. The hearing officer reviewed the conduct report and video
surveillance footage of the incident. The hearing officer’s report of the video
evidence review states:
On 7-25-16 at approx. 1232PM Officer Cowe is escorting an offender
to his cell in IDU 507 West. He secures the offender, stops briefly at
506 West and as he is walking off of the range offender Hawthorne in
D 506 throws a hard food tray at him which the contents hit the
officer in the lower portion of his body and all over the range.
ECF 7-4 at 1. Based on the conduct report and video evidence, the hearing officer
decided that Mr. Hawthorne was guilty. This wasn’t an unreasonable or arbitrary
determination, and was supported by sufficient evidence. While a conduct report
alone can provide sufficient evidence, the hearing officer also had the benefit of
video footage that captured the event. In the video, the offender in cell 506
(identified by Officer Cowe as Mr. Hawthorne) speaks to Officer Cowe, and as
Officer Cowe walks away, throws a meal tray in his direction. Based on the video,
and Officer Cowe’s statement that the items on the tray made contact with his
person, the hearing officer had sufficient evidence to find Mr. Hawthorne guilty.
Mr. Hawthorne isn’t entitled to habeas corpus relief.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition (ECF 1). The
clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
ENTERED: June 21 , 2017.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
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?