BRISCOE v. KNIGHT

Filing 19

Entry Discussing Habeas Petition and Directing Further Proceedings - Before the Court is petitioner James Briscoe's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC-16-11-0009. In that pr oceeding, Mr. Briscoe was found guilty of Possession of a Cell Phone. One of his claims is that he was denied the ability to defend himself against the charges, which violated his due process rights. Although it appears that Mr. Briscoe's due process right to notice of the charges against him was violated, because neither party adequately addressed this issue, this action shall proceed as follows. The respondent has through November 27, 2017, in which to either: (1) file a supplementa l brief addressing the issue of notice and withholding the confidential investigation report that specifically confronts the above authorities and assessment of the record; or (2) vacate the disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Briscoe and set the d isciplinary matter for re-hearing after adequate notice of the charge is given. If the respondent chooses to file a supplemental brief, the petitioner will have twenty-one days (21 days) from the date the brief is filed in which to file a supplemental reply brief. If the respondent vacates the sanctions, the respondent shall notify the Court by way of a motion to dismiss this action as moot. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/27/2017.(APD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JAMES D. BRISCOE,
Petitioner,
v.
STANLEY KNIGHT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00496-JMS-TAB

Entry Discussing Habeas Petition and Directing Further Proceedings
Before the Court is petitioner James Briscoe’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC-16-11-0009. In that
proceeding, Mr. Briscoe was found guilty of Possession of a Cell Phone. One of his claims is that
he was denied the ability to defend himself against the charges, which violated his due process
rights.
Among other things, due process requires that an inmate be given advanced “written
notice of the charges . . . in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the
facts and prepare a defense.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). “The notice should
inform the inmate of the rule allegedly violated and summarize the facts underlying the charge.”
Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 910 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted);
see Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 534 (7th Cir. 1995) (“The notice should include the
number of the rule violated . . . and a summary of the facts underlying the charge.” (citations and
quotation marks omitted)).

Mr. Briscoe was made aware of the charges against him on November 1, 2017, when he
was given a copy of the Conduct Report and the Screening Report. The Conduct Report stated
the following: “On October 31, 2016 at approximately 9:00 am, I Investigator P. Prulhiere,
completed an investigation regarding Offender James Brisco 967407. During the process of the
investigation, I found sufficient evidence to file a formal conduct violation for possession or use
of a cell phone. As a result of this evidence, I have filed this report.” Filing No. 13-1. The
Report of Investigation of Incident stated:
On October 31, 2016, I, Investigator P. Prulhiere, completed an investigation
involving Offender James Brisco [sic] 967407 under case number 16-IYC-0161.
During the process of that investigation, I found no less than 13 incidents showing
that Offender Brisco [sic] had used a cell phone multiple times over a period
spanning from August 2015 through October 2016. A complete review of these
incidents is shown in case file 16-IYC-0161 which contains a confidential case
report summary along with multiple pieces of supporting evidence that clearly
shows that Offender Brisco [sic] maintained continuous access to an illegal
cellular phone device.
The Screening Report provided no further information about the charges, but it reflects that Mr.
Briscoe requested the investigation case file as evidence. See Filing No. 13-3.
Mr. Briscoe was denied the case file as evidence, and thus was left solely with the
description of the charges from the Conduct Report and the Report of Investigation as notice of
the charges. This notice appears insufficient. Although the Conduct Report recites “the rule
allegedly violated,” it does not appear to sufficiently “summarize the facts underlying the
charge.” Northern, 326 F.3d at 910. The purpose of the required notice is to “enable [the
inmate] to marshal the facts and prepare a defense,” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, but Mr. Briscoe was
not notified of the facts underlying the cell phone possession charge and thus could not have
gathered facts to prepare a defense. As he points out in his reply, the notice does not provide
information regarding specifically when he was supposed to have had a cell phone or what the

“13 incidents” were that were referred to in the Investigation Report. This purported notice was
hardly notice of anything beyond a notice that he had been charged with the named violation,
and thus it was insufficient to comport with due process.
Relatedly, Mr. Briscoe argues that the decision to deny his request for the case file
violated his due process rights. Without it, according to Mr. Briscoe, he could not defend himself
against the charges. The respondent argues that he was not entitled to the case file because the
file is confidential under Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) regulations. But a bald
statement that the file is kept confidential pursuant to DOC regulations is not sufficient to
support a conclusion that due process was satisfied even though it was withheld. “[P]rison
authorities who assert a security justification for nondisclosure [of evidence] still have the
burden of proving that their denial of requested evidence was not ‘arbitrary or capricious.’”
Johnson v. Brown, 681 Fed. Appx. 494, 496 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Piggie v. McBride, 277
F.3d 922, 925 (7th Cir. 2002)). In order for the withholding of the file to be justified, a more
thorough explanation is required.
Although it appears that Mr. Briscoe’s due process right to notice of the charges against
him was violated, because neither party adequately addressed this issue, this action shall proceed
as follows. The respondent has through November 27, 2017, in which to either: (1) file a
supplemental brief addressing the issue of notice and withholding the confidential
investigation report that specifically confronts the above authorities and assessment of the record;
or (2) vacate the disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Briscoe and set the disciplinary matter for
re-hearing after adequate notice of the charge is given. If the respondent chooses to file a
supplemental brief, the petitioner will have twenty-one days (21 days) from the date the brief
is filed in which to file a supplemental reply brief. If the respondent vacates the sanctions, the
respondent shall notify the Court by way of a motion to dismiss this action as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/27/2017

Distribution:
JAMES D. BRISCOE
#967407
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Frances Hale Barrow
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]