FORTE v. SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL

Filing 13

ENTRY and Order Dismissing Action. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/2/2014. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DAMON FORTE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

No. 1:13-cv-01106-TWP-DKL

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
On March 4, 2012, Damon Forte was charged with trafficking in No. ISP 12-03-0030. A
hearing was conducted on March 9, 2012, at which Forte appeared and made a statement
concerning the charge. After considering Forte’s statement, the conduct report, and other
evidence, the hearing officer found Forte guilty of the charged misconduct. He was sanctioned
with, among other things, the deprivation of a period of earned credit time.
Forte now seeks a writ of habeas corpus to invalidate the disciplinary proceeding just
described. A writ of habeas corpus may be granted if an inmate is in custody in violation of the
United States Constitution or its laws or treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Inmates are entitled to due
process before any of their good time credits, in which they have a liberty interest, are taken
away from them. Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 845 (7th Cir. 2011).
One feature of the due process to which Forte was entitled—and the only feature
implicated by Forte’s habeas petition—is the requirement that there be “some evidence” to
support the hearing officer’s decision. This standard was established in Superintendent v. Hill,

472 U.S. 445 (1985). The “some evidence” standard is lenient, “requiring only that the decision
not be arbitrary or without support in the record.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786
(7th Cir. 1999). Although the evidence before the hearing officer must "point to the accused's
guilt," Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir. 1989), Aonly evidence that was presented to
the Adjustment Committee is relevant to this analysis.@ Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346
(7th Cir. 1992).
In this case, the evidence favorable to the decision of the hearing officer, see Henderson
v. United States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1993) (a federal habeas court “will
overturn the [hearing officer's] decision only if no reasonable adjudicator could have found [the
petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence presented.”), is this: On March 4,
2012, Forte’s visitor was seen fidgeting with something near her feet after a trip to the vending
machine. Forte left the visitation room and was escorted to the Sally Port by Sergeant FlyNelson, who noticed that Forte’s pockets were bulging out when he sat down. She asked him to
empty his pockets, and Forte replied, “Okay.” Forte gave Fly-Nelson two Milky Way candy bars
and three Snickers bars. After writing the conduct report, she discovered that his candy bars were
abnormally hard and unwrapped. Further inspection revealed that the candy bar wrappers hid
packages of marijuana wrapped in electrical tape. The foregoing readily supports a rational
inference that the contraband was passed to Forte during his visit. This was trafficking, and the
evidence of that offense was constitutionally sufficient. Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th
Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000). The existence of evidence
which may have supported a contrary decision does not compel such a decision. Hill, 472 U.S. at
457 (“The Federal Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion
but the one reached by the disciplinary board.”).

II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/02/2014
Date: __________________

Distribution:

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

Electronically Registered Counsel
Damon Forte
# 988357
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362