SAYLES v. ZATECKY

Filing 23

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Accordingly, Sayles' petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Sayles' motion to take action [dkt. 21] is denied as moot ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/2/2016. Copy sent via US Mail. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

RICHARD N. SAYLES,
Petitioner,
vs.
DUSHAN ZATECKY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-0114-WTL-MPB

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Richard N. Sayles for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison
disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR14-08-0076. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Sayles’ habeas petition must be denied.
Discussion
A. Overview
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); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003);
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).

B. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On August 19, 2014, Correctional Officer Jason Griffith issued a Report of Conduct that
charged Sayles with the class B-213 offense of threatening. The Report of Conduct states:
During the entire day I had several verbal encounters with Offender Sayles.
Offender Sayles cursed me on ALL of these occasions. At or around 3:30 pm
Offender Sayles 36665 screamed at me saying “Griffith, you are going to die in
here mother fucker.” I take this as a death threat and should be addressed as such .
...
Sayles was notified of the charge of class B-213 offense when Officer Guffey attempted to screen
him on the charge. Sayles refused to come out of his cell for screening. Officer Ferguson confirmed
that Sayles refused to come out of his cell for screening.
On August 25, 2014, Officer McCully asked Sayles if he wanted to attend his disciplinary
hearing, to which Sayles responded that he did not receive a copy of the Report of Conduct and
that he refused to attend the hearing. The Hearing Officer noted that Sayles refused to attend the
hearing and found him guilty of threatening in his absence based upon the Report of Conduct.
The sanctions imposed included a written reprimand, disciplinary segregation of 90 days,
and the deprivation of 90 days of earned credit time.
Sayles’ appeal to the Facility Head was denied on September 30, 2014. He then appealed
to the Final Reviewing Authority, who denied his appeal on October 28, 2014. He filed his Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 27, 2015.
C. Analysis
Sayles argues in his petition that he is entitled to habeas relief for the following reasons:
(A) he was denied a copy of the Report of Conduct or evidence; (B) the evidence was sufficient to
support the guilty decision; and (C) the Hearing Officer was impartial.

1. Requests for Report of Conduct or Evidence
Sayles first claims that he was not provided a copy of the Report of Conduct. He also claims
that the Screening Officer failed to comply with his request for the Report of Conduct, video
evidence, and a continuance. However, by refusing to participate in the screening and in his
disciplinary hearing he waived those rights.
The record shows that on August 20, 2014, Sayles was given notice that he was being
charged with threatening, but he refused to come out of his cell for the screening. He was given
the opportunity to request witnesses and physical evidence, and he failed to do so by refusing to
participate in the screening. It was not until some point thereafter that he requested a copy of the
Report of Conduct and videos.
Sayles is argues in his petition and subsequent briefing that he did not participate at the
screening hearing (where he would have had the opportunity to request exculpatory evidence) or
the disciplinary hearing because his mental illness prevented him from doing so. Specifically,
Sayles explains that to participate in disciplinary screening or hearing he is required to enter a
small metal box with small holes and a cuff port on one side. When not used for disciplinary
hearings and screenings these boxes are used as shower stalls. Sayles explains that being placed in
a small confined space severely affects him and causes panic attacks. He describes this experience
as torturous. But this argument has been procedurally defaulted because Sayles failed to raise this
issue in his disciplinary hearing appeal. That appeal says nothing about Sayles’ inability to
participate at the screening or hearing because of the physical conditions under which such
proceedings occur. Before seeking federal habeas relief, an offender must take all available
administrative appeals, and must raise in those appeals any issue on which he seeks federal review.
Eads v. Hanks, 280 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 2002). An offender’s failure to properly exhaust his
claims in the state administrative process means the claims are procedurally defaulted. Id. See also

Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[T]o exhaust a claim, and thus preserve it
for collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must present that legal theory to the ... Final
Reviewing Authority....”).
(2) Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Sayles argues that the Screening Report contains prejudicial evidence because the Report
of Conduct was based on false statements from Officer Griffith. These arguments are merely a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Hearing Officer’s finding of guilt. This
Court will not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56.
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). A
rational adjudicator could readily conclude from the content of the conduct report that Sayles had
threatened the correctional officer. Henderson v. United States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073,
1077 (7th Cir. 1993) (a federal habeas court “will overturn the . . . [conduct board’s] decision only
if no reasonable adjudicator could have found . . . [the petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis
of the evidence presented”), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 314 (1994); see also 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.”). No relief is warranted on this basis.
(3) Impartial Hearing Officer.
Sayles next claims that the Hearing Officer was not impartial because of a prior unrelated
case he brought against her and because the hearing officer and the author of the conduct report
are co-workers. One of the procedural due process rights set out in Wolff is the right to be heard
before an impartial decision maker. Due process requires recusal only where the decision-maker
has a direct or otherwise substantial involvement in the circumstances underlying the charges
against the offender. Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105, 1113 (7th Cir. 1983). The Hearing

Officer was not involved in the circumstances underlying the charge here and was not present
when the threat occurred. Sayles has failed to show that the Hearing Officer in his proceeding was
partial and no relief is warranted on this basis.
D. 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 Sayles to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, Sayles’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Sayles’ motion to take action [dkt. 21]
is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Date: 2/2/16
Distribution:
RICHARD N. SAYLES
136665
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana