ADAMS v. ZATECKY

Filing 13

ENTRY ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 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 proceedings. Accordingly, Mr. Adams' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be DENIED and the action DISMISSED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/8/2014.(MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ERIC ADAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
ZATECKY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-238-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Eric
Adams (“Mr. Adams”), an inmate in the Indiana Department of Correction, challenging a prison
disciplinary proceeding identified as ISR 13-12-0085. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Adams’ petition must be DENIED.
I. DISCUSSION
A.

Standard
Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss,

381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), 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).

B.

The Disciplinary Hearing
On December 14, 2014, Correctional Officer Zachery Klinge wrote a Report of Conduct

in case ISR 13-12-0085 charging Mr. Adams with Class B offense #207, Possession of Electronic
Device. The Report of Conduct states:
On the above date and approximate time I officer Z. Klinge conducted a cell search
of cell 13-4A in H-cellhouse. Prior to me searching, officer B. Ferguson and his K9 Port, searched the cell. Ferguson advised that Port seemed interested in the light
fixture inside the cell. I used the shakedown tool kit to remove the light fixture.
Inside the light fixture I found a cell phone charger. Using the tool kit I removed
the cable cord cover from the wall and found a tattoo gun with a bottle of black ink
behind the cover. While searching the offenders [sic] property locker I found a
black pouch altered from offender shorts and a book with a square cut out of it.
The Report of Conduct also indicates that the physical evidence was “[t]aken to the DO and placed
in locker #307.” Id. The Notice of Confiscated Property indicates that one red address book, one
black cloth pouch, one cell phone charger, one tattoo gun with ink, and one book with a square cut
out were confiscated and placed in locker #307. On December 17, 2013, Mr. Adams was notified
of the charge of offense #207 and served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary
Hearing Screening Report. Mr. Adams was notified of his rights and pled not guilty. Mr. Adams
did not request any witnesses or physical evidence.
On December 18, 2013, a hearing officer found Mr. Adams guilty of offense #207. The
Report of Disciplinary Hearing indicates that Mr. Adams refused a hearing and requested to go
straight to disciplinary segregation. In making the determination of guilt, the hearing officer
considered staff reports, evidence from witnesses, and physical evidence, including photographs.
Based on the hearing officer’s recommendations the following sanctions were imposed: a
written reprimand, three months of disciplinary segregation, a ninety day deprivation of earned
credit time and demotion from credit class 2 to credit class 3. The hearing officer imposed the
sanctions because of the seriousness, frequency and nature of the offense, Mr. Adams’ attitude and
2

demeanor during the hearing, and the degree to which the violation disrupted the security of the
facility.
On December 20, 2013, Mr. Adams appealed to the Facility Head. On January 8, 2014,
the Facility Head denied the appeal. Mr. Adams’ appeal to the Appeal Review Officer was denied
on January 17, 2014.
C.

Analysis
Mr. Adams challenges the disciplinary action taken against him, arguing 1) the evidence

card was improperly completed; 2) Department of Correction (“DOC”) policy was violated; and
3) the hearing officer was not impartial.
1.

Evidence card

Mr. Adams’ first argument is that the evidence card was completed improperly because the
card shows that the items taken from his cell were placed in a locker before the shakedown
occurred.
The evidence card states that the evidence was found in Mr. Adams’ cell at 10:15 p.m. on
December 14, 2013. It also indicates it was delivered to locker #307 by Correctional Officer Z.
Klinge at 12:35 on December 14, 2013. Although, as Mr. Adams claims, this appears to be
inconsistent, as it indicates that the confiscated evidence was placed in the locker prior to the time
items were found in Mr. Adams’ cell, the other evidence shows that this was a scrivener’s error.
The Report of Conduct and Notice of Confiscated Property forms show that a cell phone charger,
tattoo gun with a bottle of ink, a black pouch, and a book with a square cut out of it, were found in
Mr. Adams’ cell at 10:15 p.m. on December 14, 2013, and were confiscated. The Report of
Conduct further shows that the items were taken to “the DO and placed in locker #307.” It appears
that when completing the evidence card, the officer inadvertently overlooked that at midnight the

3

date changed, wrote the date as December 14, 2013, when the date was actually December 15th.
Mr. Adams argues simply that “[i]t states on Evidence card that it must be filled out properly.”
Any violation of internal procedures here does not rise to the level of a due process violation. See
Hester v. McBride, 966 F.Supp. 765, 774-75 (N.D. Ind. 1997). Further, Mr. Adams does not state
how he was prejudiced by this error, and it is therefore harmless. See Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d
660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003) (error harmless unless prisoner shows how he is prejudiced).
2.

DOC Policy

Mr. Adams next claims that DOC policy was violated because he claims he never received
a copy of the Notice of Confiscated Property form informing him of what was taken from of his
cell. Violations of administrative policy are not proper claims in a federal habeas action. See
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas relief only available for violations
of U.S. Constitution or other federal laws); Hester, 966 F.Supp. at 774-75. Further, Mr. Adams
was presented with the Report of Conduct at the time of screening. The Report of Conduct states
what items were found and confiscated. Therefore, Mr. Adams was given notice of what items
were confiscated and could have prepared a defense. This satisfies the requirements of due
process.
3.

Hearing Officer

Finally, Mr. Adams claims that he had an unfair hearing because the hearing officer was
not impartial. He asserts that the hearing officer, Sgt. Rhinehart, “doesn’t hear cases” but “writes
sanctions before you’ve had a chance to finish talking or pleading case.”

In disciplinary

proceedings, adjudicators are “entitled to a presumption of honesty and integrity.” Piggie, 342
F.3d at 666. Where an official is substantially involved in the underlying incident and also acts as
a decision maker in the disciplinary proceedings, due process is violated. Whitford v. Boglino, 63

4

F.3d 527, 534 (7th Cir. 1995). Mr. Adams does not allege that the hearing officer was involved in
the underlying incident and the record shows she was not. Mr. Adams simply has not provided
any evidence or argument to show that he was deprived of his right to an impartial hearing officer.
II. 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 proceedings. Accordingly, Mr. Adams’ Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus must be DENIED and the action DISMISSED. Judgment consistent with this
Entry shall now issue.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 12/8/2014

DISTRIBUTION:
Eric Adams, #992106
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
Kathy Jo Bradley
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]

5