Christmas v. Superintendent

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Mr. Christmas's motion for default judgment (ECF 3) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/10/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ALVIN CHRISTMAS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-704-RLM-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Alvin Christmas, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging a disciplinary hearing (ISP 17-07-307) in which a hearing officer found
him guilty of making or possessing intoxicants in violation of Indiana Department
of Correction policy B-231 on July 21, 2017. As a result, he was sanctioned with
the loss of 30 days earned credit time. The Warden has filed the administrative
record and Mr. Christmas filed a traverse, making the case ripe for ruling.
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 the due

process requirement, 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, Mr. Christmas argues there are two grounds which entitle
him to habeas corpus relief.
In the first ground, Mr. Christmas contends there was insufficient evidence
for the hearing officer to find him guilty. 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.” Supt. v. Hill, 472
U.S. at 455-456. “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).

2

Mr. Christmas was found guilty of making or possessing intoxicants in
violation of IDOC policy B-231, which prohibits inmates from ”[m]aking or
possessing intoxicants, or being under the influence of any intoxicating substance
(e.g., alcohol, inhalants). Indiana Department of Correction, 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 Mr. Christmas as follows:
On 7-17-17 at approx 8:45 am I officer French found intoxicants in
the cabinet in offender Christmas 128467 and it tested positive for
alcohol.
ECF 5-1 at 1.
Officer Brown provided this statement about the incident:
On 7-17-17 at approx. 8:45 am I Officer Brown saw Officer French
find intoxicants that tested positive for alcohol in the cabinet in
offender 128462 B224.
ECF 5-2 at 1.
The hearing officer provided the following written summary of the video
footage of the incident:
At approx. 8:43AM Officer K. French is at cell B224. He enters the
cell and is seen shaking it down. Offender Christmas is on the range,
cuffed behind the back standing in front of his cell.
At approx. 8:58AM items are being placed outside of the cell of
offender Christmas.
Officer D. Brown is seen at approx. 9:02AM.

3

At approx. 9:05AM Officer K. French is seen with items taken from
the cell, which include a crate, a bucket and some other unknown
items. There looks to be items in the crate, but I am not sure exactly
what they are.
ECF 5-7 at 1.
In assessing the evidence, the hearing officer decided there was enough
evidence in the record to find Mr. Christmas guilty of making or possessing
intoxicants in violation of offense B-231. A conduct report alone can be enough
to support a finding of guilt. McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d at 786. That’s the
case here. In the conduct report, Officer French detailed his discovery of bottles
containing intoxicants in Mr. Christmas’s cell during a shakedown of his cell.
Officer Brown, who assisted Officer French in the shakedown of Mr. Christmas’s
cell, provided a statement that he saw Officer French find bottles of intoxicants in
the cabinet of Mr. Christmas’s cell. Officer Brown conducted an Alco-Blow test on
the bottles of intoxicants and found that at least one of the bottles tested positive
for alcohol. Photographic evidence showed the bottles of intoxicants Officer French
confiscated from Mr. Christmas’s cell. In light of the conduct report detailing
Officer French’s discovery of the bottles of intoxicants in Mr. Christmas’s cell
coupled with the Alco-Blow test results that were positive for alcohol, there was
more than “some evidence” for the hearing officer to find Mr. Christmas guilty of
violating offense B-231.
Nevertheless, Mr. Christmas asserts there was insufficient evidence to find
him guilty for a number of reasons. He first claims the results of the Alco-Blow
4

test weren’t reliable because another offender’s name appeared on the report: the
report lists the name “Chritmas” instead of “Christmas.” But here it appears that
Officer Brown simply misspelled Mr. Christmas’s name. Second, at his hearing,
Mr. Christmas made a statement that the Alco-Blow test results had someone
else’s identification number—128467—listed on it. The court’s review of the
record, however, shows that Mr. Christmas’s identification number is 128467 and
the number on the Alco-Blow test results has the same number—128467.
Mr. Christmas further complains there was insufficient evidence for the
hearing officer to find him guilty because the only items taken from his cell were
two pillows, a wash bucket, and a milk crate. He seems to rely on the hearing
officer’s written summary of the video footage of the incident to claim there were
no bottles of any kind confiscated from his cell. While the written summary of the
video footage confirms that a crate and bucket were removed from Mr. Christmas’s
cell, it might not have been possible for the hearing officer to see what was in the
crate or bucket when she viewed the footage because she stated “There looks to
be items in the crate, but I am not sure exactly what they are.” Mr. Christmas is
asking the court to reweigh the evidence, which isn’t the court’s role. McPherson
v. McBride, 188 F.3d at 786 (the court is not “required to conduct an examination
of the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the
evidence.”). Rather, the court’s role is to determine if the hearing officer’s decision
to revoke good time credits has some factual basis. Because the hearing officer,

5

who presided over Mr. Christmas’s hearing, considered all of the relevant evidence
in this case, including (1) the conduct report, (2) Mr. Christmas’s statement, (3)
Officer Brown’s statement, (4) the Alco-Blow test results, (5) the video footage of
the incident, and (6) photographs of the bottles containing intoxicants, there was
no violation of Christmas’s due process rights. Supt. v. Hill, 472 U.S. at 456-457
(“the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”). The hearing officer’s
finding that Mr. Christmas was guilty was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable in
light of the facts presented in this case. This ground doesn’t state a basis for
habeas corpus relief.
In the second ground of his petition, Mr. Christmas argues his Eighth
Amendment rights were violated because three to four days after his disciplinary
hearing he received a “bad work evaluation” and loss of contact visitation for a
period of six months in an unrelated matter. Unlike his other grounds, this
ground doesn’t question whether Mr. Christmas was afforded due process as it
relates to his disciplinary hearing. Because his Eighth Amendment claim does not
affect the fact or length of his custody, it can’t be remedied in a habeas corpus
petition pursuant to Section 2254. Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643
(7th Cir. 2001). If Mr. Christmas wishes to challenge his conditions of
confinement, he must assert those claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than in
a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. To the extent Mr. Christmas

6

claims his loss of contact visitation also constitutes “a form of double jeopardy,”
that contention fails because double jeopardy principles do not apply in the prison
disciplinary context. Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). This
ground doesn’t identify a basis for habeas corpus relief, either.
If Mr. Christmas wants to appeal this order, he doesn’t 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). But he can’t proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal
in this case could not be taken in good faith.
For these reasons, Alvin Christmas’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF
1) is DENIED and Mr. Christmas’s motion for default judgment (ECF 13) is
DENIED as moot. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED on December 10, 2018

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7