HARDEN v. SUPERINTENDENT
ENTRY and Order Dismissing Action: Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied and this action is dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/2/2013. Copy sent via US Mail.(DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Entry and Order Dismissing Action
Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss,
381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d
641, 644–45 (7th Cir. 2001), without due process. The due process requirement is satisfied with
the issuance of advance written notice of the charges, a limited opportunity to present evidence
to an impartial decision maker, a written statement articulating the reasons for the disciplinary
action and the evidence justifying it, and “some evidence in the record” to support the finding of
guilt. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 570–71 (1974); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v.
Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
Measured against this standard, Calvin Harden’s challenge to the disciplinary proceeding
identified as No. IYC 13-04-0125, in which he was charged with and found guilty of destruction
of state property, fails. Specifically: (1) the conduct report contains the reporting officer’s firsthand account of damage to the mattress on April 11, 2013; (2) Harden received a copy of the
conduct report in advance of the hearing; (3) a hearing was conducted on April 20, 2013; (4)
Harden was present at the hearing and made a statement concerning the charge; (5) the evidence
requested by Harden was considered by the hearing officer, except for statements from two
inmates who refused to give statements; (6) the hearing officer’s report identifies the evidence
considered in making a decision; and (7) the hearing officer’s report includes a statement of the
reasons for the sanctions which were imposed.
"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 proceeding, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and
there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Harden to the relief he
seeks. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied and this action is
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360
All electronically registered counsel
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?