COFFMAN v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 14

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - Accordingly, the respondent has through May 11, 2016, to supplement the record with any evidence related to this issue and to file a brief explaining why the standards reference above from Ellison and Webb ar e met in this case. Mr. Coffman shall have through May 25, 2016, in which to file a response to the respondent's submission if he so chooses. Any such response should address any arguments the respondent makes regarding harmless error. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/21/2016.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

PAUL COFFMAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
WENDY KNIGHT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01161-TWP-DML

Entry Directing Further Proceedings
Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner Paul Coffman’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in which he challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. CIC 1311-0105. The petition, among other things, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that the
substance confiscated from his cell was methamphetamine. Mr. Coffman argues that insufficient
evidence was presented at the disciplinary hearing.
The respondent’s position is that there was sufficient evidence that the substance at issue
was methamphetamine based on the conduct report alone. The conduct report stated in a
conclusory manner that methamphetamine was confiscated from the petitioner’s cell. Moreover,
the respondent points to toxicology reports stating that the confiscated substances tested positive
for both methamphetamine and marijuana. There is no evidence regarding the chain of custody
for those toxicology reports, however, it is not clear from the record that the hearing officer had
available and considered the toxicology tests at the disciplinary hearing.
The Seventh Circuit recently observed that “[a]dministrative decisions resting on chemical
analysis typically require both the test results and a chain of custody linking those results to the

particular prisoner.” Ellison v. Zatecky, --- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 1567039, *3 (7th Cir. Apr. 19,
2016); see Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding that the “toxicology
report and the chain of custody slip constitute ‘some evidence’ supporting the decision”) (emphasis
added). In Ellison, the Seventh Circuit went on to observe that, in the absence of such evidence,
testimony from an officer “that, based on his training and experience, he recognized the substance”
as the drug at issue may suffice. 2016 WL 1567039, at *3.
It is unclear from the current record whether either category of evidence discussed in
Ellison was present at the Mr. Coffman’s disciplinary hearing. Specifically, there appears to be
no evidence as to a chain of custody and it appears from the disciplinary hearing report that, in any
event, the hearing officer did not consider the toxicology reports.
Accordingly, the respondent has through May 11, 2016, to supplement the record with
any evidence related to this issue and to file a brief explaining why the standards reference above
from Ellison and Webb are met in this case. In doing so, the respondent must specifically explain:
(1) whether the hearing officer had access to and considered the toxicology reports in the record,
and what record evidence demonstrates this; (2) whether there is evidence of a chain of custody
concerning the samples referenced in the toxicology reports; and (3) whether the “IA Investigation
Report” reference in the disciplinary hearing report is in the record and, if not, what is contained
within that report. The respondent may also address whether, given that the petitioner admitted to
possessing marijuana, any error regarding the methamphetamine is harmless after the petitioner’s
violation was changed to a code B202, “Use of Possession of a Controlled Substance,” and his
sanctions were reduced on appeal.

Mr. Coffman shall have through May 25, 2016, in which to file a response to the
respondent’s submission if he so chooses. Any such response should address any arguments the
respondent makes regarding harmless error.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/21/2016

Distribution:
Paul Coffman
No. 206250
Pendleton-CIF
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Electronically Registered Counsel