Hall v. Superintendent

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The clerk is directed to close this case. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 3/19/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ERVIN R. HALL,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-531-JD-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Ervin R. Hall, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his disciplinary hearing (ISP 17-03-147) at the Westville Correctional Facility
on April 5, 2017, where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of
engaging in an unauthorized financial transaction in violation of Indiana Department of
Correction (IDOC) policy B-220. ECF 2 at 1. As a result, he lost 30 days earned credit
time and was demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id.
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
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). In his petition, Hall argues there are three grounds which entitle him to
habeas corpus relief.
First, Hall argues the DHO did not have sufficient evidence to find him guilty.
ECF 2 at 2. In the context of a prison disciplinary hearing, “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, 455-56 (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).
Here, Hall was found guilty of violating IDOC offense B-220, which prohibits
inmates from “[e]ngaging in or possessing materials used for unauthorized financial

2

transactions. This includes, but is not limited to, the use or possession of identifying
information of credit cards, debit cards, or any other card used to complete a financial
transaction.” Adult Disciplinary Process, Appendix I.
http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101_APPENDIX_I-OFFENSES_6-1-2015(1).pdf.
The Conduct Report charged Hall as follows:
On the above date and time, this Investigator Sharon Hert was monitoring
phone calls. The phone number 219 614-8239 is on offender Ervin Hall’s
#921011 phone list as Rhonda Young “Friend”. On 3/6/17 this phone
number was given to a caller telling them to place 50 dollars on ### 5527791 and 75 on ### 186-1726 number. The caller was told they are Pay Pal
numbers. On 3/6/17 at approx 16:41 offender Hall calls 219 614-8239 and
talks to Ms. Young. Hall is heard saying if his cousin has called and given
her 125 dollars. She tells him someone did call. Hall asks her again if his
cousin called and she confirms the call and tells him, there was 70 on one
and 50 on the other. Hall is heard saying, “It should be 75 on one and 50
on the other. She tells him that sounds correct she would check it again.
Hall is then heard saying it was for lawyer fees.
Based on the phone calls that were monitored offender Ervin Hall #921011
will be issued the Class B 220 Unauthorized Financial Transaction.
ECF 8-1 at 1.
The DHO had sufficient evidence to find Hall guilty of violating offense B-220. A
conduct report alone can be enough to support a finding of guilt. McPherson, 188 F.3d
at 786. Such is the case here. The reporting officer heard telephone calls between an
unidentified caller and Young as well as calls between Hall and Young. Hall was
recorded asking Young whether “his cousin” had called and given her $125. ECF 8 at 7.
After she confirmed she received the call and stated one payment was $70 and the other
was $50, Hall corrected Young and told her the payments should have been $75 and
3

$50. Id. Earlier that same day, the unidentified caller told Young to place the $75 and
$50 transactions on two PayPal numbers. Id. The details of these transactions
corresponded exactly. Id. Hall’s question to Young further indicated he was expecting
her to have received the prior call detailing the transactions. Id. at 7-8. Based on the
phone call between Hall and Young, there was more than “some evidence” that Hall
conducted an unauthorized financial transaction with Young.1
Hall asserts the DHO did not consider his written statement and that it was
omitted from the record. ECF 2 at 2. However, that is not the case. Hall’s statement is
contained in the administrative record, ECF 8-6 at 2, and the DHO considered it in
reaching a decision. ECF 8-6 at 1. It appears as though what Hall is actually
complaining about is that the DHO did not credit his statement. However, the DHO
was responsible for determining the credibility of Hall’s statement and this court cannot
reevaluate that decision. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-456. Therefore this ground does not state
a basis for habeas corpus relief.
Next, Hall asserts that his request to obtain a statement from the unidentified
caller in the Conduct Report was improperly denied. Prison officials have discretion to
“keep the hearing within reasonable limits.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. Thus, a hearing
officer may deny witness or evidence requests that threaten institutional goals or are
irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary. Piggie v. Cotton , 342 F.3d 660, 678 (7th Cir. 2003).

1

The Court reviewed the audio recordings of the phone conversations and notes the Conduct
Report accurately reflects Hall’s participation in an unauthorized financial transaction as described in the
Conduct Report.

4

That is what happened here. The DHO denied Hall’s request for a statement from the
unidentified “caller” as irrelevant. ECF 8-2.
Hall contends this witness was needed to explain why that unidentified caller
had Rhonda Young’s contact information. Id. However, that information is irrelevant.
Hall was disciplined for committing offense B-220 because he used Young to conduct an
unauthorized financial transaction. Therefore, even if the witness had presented a
statement explaining how he obtained Young’s number, it would not have changed the
fact that Hall was recorded asking Young about the two financial transactions which
corresponded to the two transactions discussed between the unidentified caller and
Young.
Furthermore, a hearing officer’s improper exclusion of evidence will be deemed
harmless unless there is some indication from the record that the evidence “might have
aided [the prisoner’s] defense.” Piggie, 342 F.3d at 666. Hall does not identify anything
from this witness that would prove to be exculpatory or that might have aided his
defense. Thus, even if the hearing officer improperly excluded this witness, it would
have been a harmless error. Therefore, he is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.
Finally, Hall argues the Conduct Report failed to describe an unauthorized
financial transaction of any kind. ECF 2 at 3. Prisoners are entitled to notice of the basis
of the charges against them. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-64. This requirement is satisfied so
long as the underlying basis of the charge was adequate to give the prisoner notice of
the allegations against him. Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 910 (7th Cir. 2003). This
5

requirement was met. The detailed Conduct Report informed Hall of the facts sufficient
to apprise him of the unauthorized financial transaction charge. ECF 8-1 at 1. Therefore,
Hall is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on this ground either.
If Hall wants to appeal this order, he does not need a certificate of appealability
because he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. See Evans v. Circuit Court,
569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009).
For these reasons, Ervin Hall’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED on March 19, 2018.

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6