MYNATT v. BUTTS

Filing 23

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition of Jared Mynatt ("Mynatt") for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/20/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JARED A. MYNATT,
Petitioner,

vs.
KEITH BUTTS,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.1:12-cv-722-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the petition of Jared Mynatt
(“Mynatt”) for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action dismissed
with prejudice.
Background
The pleadings and the expanded record in this action establish the following:
1.

Mynatt is confined at an Indiana prison. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus

with respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR 11-09-109,
wherein he was found guilty of having violated prison rules of conduct by
committing assault/battery with bodily fluids.
2.

A conduct report was issued on September 23, 2011, reciting that Mynatt

was told to hand over the shorts he was wearing to Officer B. Hurt, that Mynatt ran
to his cell, removed and dipped his shorts in the toilet, and then threw the shorts at
Officer B. Hurt. The shorts hit the front of Hurt’s uniform. The front of the pants of
his uniform was struck by a liquid which smelled like urine.

3.

After being supplied with a copy of the written charge and notified of his

procedural rights, at a hearing conducted on September 26, 2011, Mynatt was found
guilty of the misconduct with which he had been charged. He was sanctioned.
Mynatt’s Claims
Contending that the proceeding described above is tainted by constitutional
error, Mynatt seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Mynatt’s specific contentions are that
(1) he was denied evidence because (2) his case was “pre-determined.”
Discussion
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
2254(a) only if it finds the applicant Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.@ Id. When a prison disciplinary proceeding
results in a sanction which affects the expected duration of a prisoner=s
confinement, typically through the deprivation of earned good-time credits or the
demotion in credit earning class, the state may not deprive inmates of good-time
credits without following constitutionally adequate procedures to ensure that the
credits are not arbitrarily rescinded and habeas corpus is the proper remedy.
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004).
"Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and
the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In these circumstances, Carter was entitled
to the following process before being deprived of his liberty interests: (1) advance (at
least 24 hours before hearing) written notice of the claimed violation; (2) the

opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker; (3) the opportunity to
call

witnesses

and

present

documentary

evidence

(when

consistent

with

institutional safety); and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence
relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969
F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992). In addition, there is a substantive component to the
issue, which requires that the decision of a conduct board be supported by "some
evidence." Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985).
Under Wolff and Hill, Mynatt received all the process to which he was
entitled. That is, the charge was clear, adequate notice was given, and the evidence
was sufficient. In addition, (1) Mynatt was given the opportunity to appear before
the hearing officer and make a statement concerning the charge, (2) the hearing
officer issued a sufficient statement of its findings, and (3) the conduct board issued
a written reason for its decision and for the sanctions which were imposed. Mynatt’s
claims otherwise are unavailing here.
Conclusion
"The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against
arbitrary action of the government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary
action in any aspect of the charge, disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions involved in
the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the
proceeding which entitles Mynatt to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Carter=s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/20/2012
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Jared A. Mynatt
DOC #120001
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
[e-mail]