BOWERS v. WARDEN
Filing
33
Entry Discussing Evidentiary Hearing, Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The petition of Eugene Bowers for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. WVD 16-0 1-0085. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Bowers's habeas petition must be denied. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There wa s 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 Mr. Bowers to the relief he seeks. The Court concludes that Mr. Bowers received advance written notice of the charges, did not suffer a double jeopardy violation, waived his right to attend the disciplinary hearing, and any denial of evidence or witnesses did not violate his due proc ess rights as he has failed to demonstrate that this error was harmful. Accordingly, Mr. Bowers's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/2/2019.(JDH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
EUGENE BOWERS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.
No. 1:18-cv-00271-JMS-TAB
Entry Discussing Evidentiary Hearing,
Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The petition of Eugene Bowers for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary
proceeding identified as No. WVD 16-01-0085. 1 For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr.
Bowers’s habeas petition must be denied.
I. Findings of Fact
A. Procedural History
The disciplinary action that underlies Mr. Bowers’s habeas petition began with a January
16, 2016 Conduct Report, in which Sgt. Lantrip charged Mr. Bowers with threatening – B213. The
Conduct Report states:
On 1/16/2016 at approx. 0615 I Sgt. S. Lantrip was feeding cell 212 where Offender
Bowers, Eugene #882244 1S on Icrash. 2 When I opened up the cuffport Offender
1
Mr. Bowers currently has two petitions for writ of habeas corpus pending before this Court
challenging disciplinary proceedings at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (Wabash Valley).
WVD 16-01-0084 is pending in Bowers v. Warden, 1:17-cv-1695-JMS-TAB. The disciplinary
proceeding that underlies this action – WVD 16-01-0085 – was original pending in Bowers v.
Warden, 1:17-cv-17-1695-JMS-TAB, but is now pending in this action after it was severed on
January 20, 2018.
2
According to the respondent’s return, Icrash stands for Cell Administrative Restrictive Status
Housing. Dkt. 3, p. 3.
1
Bowers leaned down to the cuffport and stated “you have to open my door
sometime and when you do I will kill you!”
Dkt. 3-8.
Mr. Bowers previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Bowers v. Brown, 2:16cv-152-JMS-MJD, challenging the disciplinary proceedings in WVD 16-01-0085. In that petition,
Mr. Bowers stated that he did not receive written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours
before the disciplinary hearing. The respondent filed a return arguing that Mr. Bowers received all
the due process he was due and introduced a Screening Report dated January 21, 2016, which
stated that Mr. Bowers was notified of the threatening charge but refused screening.
Because the above evidence left the Court with two mutually exclusive versions of events,
the Court issued an Entry Discussing the Need for Evidentiary Hearing or Vacation of Disciplinary
Sanctions. Id., dkt. 17. The respondent chose to vacate the disciplinary sanctions and notified Mr.
Bowers of this decision on March 6, 2017. Id., dkt. 18-1. The Court dismissed the petition as moot
on March 8, 2017, after the respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Id., dkt. 19. After the Court’s
dismissal of Mr. Bowers’s initial petition, the Indiana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) began
disciplinary proceedings related to WVD 16-01-0085 anew, which are outlined below.
B. The Disciplinary Proceeding
In March 2017, Officer Shaye Byers was the conduct adjustment board screening officer
at New Castle Correctional Facility (New Castle). 3 As screening officer, Officer Byers reviews the
conduct reports with the offenders, explains the charges, notifies the offenders of their rights,
determines whether the offenders want to call any witnesses or present any evidence, obtains their
The incidents that give rise to the conduct report occurred at Wabash Valley. Mr. Bowers was
transferred to New Castle on February 15, 2016.
3
2
pleas, and notifies offenders of the date of the disciplinary hearing. 4 The IDOC has a screening
checklist that the screening officer uses during screening. Ex. 1, p. 6. 5 The purpose of the checklist
is to ensure that the screening officer follows the screening guidelines. When screening is
completed, the screening officer gives the checklist to the hearing officer.
On March 8, 2017, Sgt. Logan escorted Mr. Bowers into a conference room at New Castle.
Officer Byers was in the room when Mr. Bowers arrived. 6 Mr. Bowers sat down, and Officer Byers
immediately notified him of the order issued on March 6, 2017 by J. Lyttle vacating the sanctions
imposed in WVD 16-01-0085 and setting the matter for a rehearing. Ex. 1, p. 9; Bowers v. Brown,
2:16-cv-152-JMS-MJD, dkt. 18-1. Although Mr. Bowers had previously read the letter from
Lyttle, he stated he was not going to sign the document and directed Officer Byers’s attention to
the entry issued by this Court that dismissed the first disciplinary proceedings as moot when the
IDOC vacated the sanctions. Mr. Bowers’s protests establish that he was clearly aware that the
report presented by Officer Byers was related to the disciplinary sanctions raised in the previously
dismissed lawsuit. Officer Byers then read each conduct report to Mr. Bowers.
However, at some point in the screening process, Mr. Bowers stopped Officer Byers and
she suspended the screening because in her view, Mr. Bowers was refusing to cooperate. Officer
Byers wrote on each conduct report that Mr. Bowers refused screening. Ex. 1, p. 2. Officer Byers
also wrote on the screening report that Mr. Bowers refused screening. Ex. 1, p. 3. Sgt. Logan also
4
This process is commonly referred to as screening.
5
Exhibit 1 was introduced by the respondent at the evidentiary hearing without objection.
6
Mr. Bowers and Officer Byers both state that Sgt. Logan remained in the conference room but
Sgt. Logan states he escorted Mr. Bowers to the room and stood outside. Sgt. Logan does not have
a good memory of this event. However, Sgt. Logan assumed that Mr. Bowers refused screening
because he left the conference room before being instructed to do so by staff.
3
signed next to where Officer Byers wrote “refused,” although he did so at the direction of Officer
Byers and not based on personal observation. Id. Copies of the screening report and conduct report
are normally sent back with the offender once the screening process is over. If the offender is
restrained, it is Officer Byers’s habit to send the papers back with the escorting officer. Id.
On Mr. Bowers’s screening checklist in WVD 16-01-0085, Officer Byers verified Mr.
Bowers’s name and IDOC number and circled “no” to the question “Does the offender wish to be
screened[.]” Id. She also did not circle an answer to seven questions that followed. Ex. 1, p. 6.
Mr. Bowers states that he never received the conduct report or screening report relating to
disciplinary proceeding WVD 16-01-0085 and was never given an opportunity to sign them. Ex.
1, pp. 2-3. Mr. Bowers never received a copy of the notices of lay advocate or witness. Ex. 1, p. 4.
Mr. Bowers states that he did not refuse to sign these documents.
A disciplinary hearing was held on March 15, 2017, for both WVD 16-01-0084 and WVD
16-01-0085. IDOC employees, Officers Nickoe Rucker and Donald Taylor, arrived at Mr.
Bowers’s cell on March 15, 2017 to escort him to the disciplinary hearing. They instructed him to
cuff up and he told them he was not leaving his cell. Officers Rucker and Taylor signed the report
of disciplinary hearing which stated that Mr. Bowers refused to attend the disciplinary hearing.
Dkt. 3-11. A hearing was held in Mr. Bowers’s absence and he was found guilty of threatening in
WVD 16-01-0085. Id.
Officer Thompson joined Officers Rucker and Taylor on March 15, 2017, to escort Mr.
Bowers to his disciplinary hearing. Mr. Bowers refused to leave his cell. Officer Thompson signed
the bottom of the report of disciplinary hearing which stated that Mr. Bowers refused to attend the
disciplinary hearing. Id. IDOC staff do not force an offender to attend a disciplinary hearing.
4
C. Mr. Bowers’s Petition and the Evidentiary Hearing
In his petition, Mr. Bowers again argues that he did not receive written notice of the charges
at least twenty-four hours before the disciplinary hearing. Dkt. 2. The respondent responded by
introducing a Screening Report dated March 8, 2017, which states that Mr. Bowers was notified
of the threatening charge but refused screening. Dkt. 3-9.
The Court issued an Entry Discussing the Need for Evidentiary Hearing or Vacation of
Disciplinary Sanctions. Dkt. 7. The respondent elected to proceed with an evidentiary hearing. Mr.
Bowers was appointed counsel and a hearing was held on September 20, 2018. Mr. Bowers
appeared in person and by counsel, Mario Garcia and Terry Tolliver. The respondent was
represented by Deputy Attorney General David Arthur. The parties submitted proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
II. Conclusions of Law
In his petition, Mr. Bowers raises three grounds. Specifically, Mr. Bowers alleges: 1) a due
process violation because he was never given advance written notice of the charges and was denied
the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence; 2) a double jeopardy violation because he was
serving two different commitments when each disciplinary hearing occurred; and 3) a due process
violation because he was forced to participate in a disciplinary hearing despite not being screened
and he was not permitted to present witnesses and evidence.
A. Ground One – Due Process at Screening
In ground one, Mr. Bowers argues that he was not given advance written notice of the
charge and was not allowed to request witnesses and evidence at screening. 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
5
(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).
1. Advance Written Notice
Based on the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, the Court finds that Officer
Byers did not complete the IDOC screening process or the checklist. Ex. 1, p. 6. 7 While proper
completion of the IDOC checklist ensures that inmates are properly advised of their rights,
completion is not necessary to comport with the protections in Wolff. And the Wolff protections
are the only issues reviewable here. With respect to advance written notice, the Court finds that
Mr. Bowers had advance written notice of the charges because this was the second time he received
a conduct report on the same charge and his protests concerning his (mis)understanding 8 of the
7
Based on Mr. Bowers’s history in these (and other) disciplinary proceedings, the Court is
incredulous that the IDOC did not take better care to ensure that Mr. Bowers was thoroughly
screened the second time around. Even if Mr. Bowers refused to sign the conduct report or
screening report, the IDOC needed to take care that the screening staff went through the
disciplinary process checklist. For example, a witness in the room or a video recording of the
screening staff person presenting the conduct report to Mr. Bowers and notifying him of his due
process rights would have been helpful. While the Court concludes that Mr. Bowers did receive
notice of the charges here, the IDOC managed the second disciplinary proceedings in such a way
that created unnecessary work for the Court, counsel, and IDOC staff.
Mr. Bowers misinterprets the previous Entry from this Court in Bowers v. Brown, 2:16-cv-152JMS-MJD, dkt. 19. The Entry dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenged the
disciplinary sanctions in WVD 16-01-0085 because the respondent notified the Court that he
vacated the sanctions. Mr. Bowers relied on the Court’s Entry for the proposition that the IDOC
was not permitted to set this matter for rehearing, but the Entry did not prevent or prohibit the
IDOC from holding a rehearing based on the same report of conduct.
8
6
Court’s dismissal in the earlier related action establish that he knew exactly what conduct report
was at issue. Mr. Bowers previously received the exact same conduct report attached to the
respondent’s response in Bowers v. Brown, 2:16-cv-152-JMS-MJD. And the screening report and
conduct reports are identical in the current proceedings and the initial proceedings.
Moreover, the Court does not find Mr. Bowers credible. He testified that on previous
occasions in relation to different disciplinary proceedings he refused to sign the paperwork
approximately twenty percent of the time. He has also been through the disciplinary proceeding
process more than 15 times and knows that IDOC staff will be handing him papers to sign. In fact,
on previous occasions, Officer Byers gave Mr. Bowers papers to sign and he requested witnesses,
a lay advocate, and he was given twenty-four hours’ notice of when the disciplinary hearings would
be held. Mr. Bowers cannot refuse to participate in the screening process and then call foul when
the process continues without him.
2. The Right to Present Witnesses and Evidence
A more significant concern presented by the circumstances of the failed screening is that
Officer Byers did not notify Mr. Bowers of his right to present evidence and witnesses. Even this
failure will not entitle Mr. Bowers to relief, as due process only requires access to witnesses and
evidence that are exculpatory. Rasheed–Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992).
“Exculpatory” in this context means evidence that “directly undermines the reliability of the
evidence in the record pointing to [the prisoner’s] guilt.” Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 721 (7th
Cir. 1996). The denial of the right to present evidence will be considered harmless, unless the
prisoner shows that the evidence could have aided his defense. See Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841,
847 (7th Cir. 2011).
7
Mr. Bowers has never asserted that he would have presented any exculpatory evidence but
was prevented from doing so. In fact, throughout these proceedings, Mr. Bowers has never
proffered what witnesses or evidence he was prevented from presenting as a result of the alleged
failure to provide him with advance notice of the hearing. The Court concludes that any denial of
the right to present evidence was harmless because Mr. Bowers failed to show how the evidence
could have aided his defense.
Accordingly, Mr. Bowers is not entitled to relief on this ground.
B.
Ground Two – Double Jeopardy
In ground two, Mr. Bowers claims that he was subjected to a double jeopardy violation
because the rehearing on the instant charge occurred when he was under a different commitment
than he was under when the original disciplinary hearing took place. More specifically, he claims
he was serving a sentence under Cause No. 49G06-0008-CF-149750 when the original sanctions
were imposed but was serving a sentence under Cause No. 49F24-1211-FD-79190 when the
sanctions were imposed at rehearing. He argues he filed a petition for restoration of good time
credit but was denied because he was serving a new commitment.
Mr. Bowers’s argument fails to acknowledge that the sanctions imposed from the original
disciplinary conviction were vacated when the rehearing was ordered. Because all lost credit time
and credit class demotions were restored prior to the rehearing, Mr. Bowers did not suffer a loss
of liberty interest with respect to the initial disciplinary proceedings.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has long held that “disciplinary proceedings do not implicate
double jeopardy concerns.” United States v. Morales, 312 Fed. Appx. 823, 824 (7th Cir. Feb. 20,
2009) (inmate could be disciplined by prison and prosecuted by the government for same conduct);
Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996) (“an acquittal in an earlier prison disciplinary
hearing is no bar to a subsequent hearing to consider the very same charge.”). “If an acquittal in
8
an earlier hearing were to preclude a subsequent hearing on the same charge, the overriding interest
of prison administrators to act swiftly to maintain institutional order could be compromised in the
interest of developing the evidence needed to obtain a conviction.” Meeks, 81 F.3d at 722. See also
Portee v. Vannatta, 105 Fed.Appx. 855, 858 (7th Cir. 2004) (“double jeopardy protections do not
attach in prison disciplinary proceedings.”). The double jeopardy claim is denied as meritless.
C.
Ground Three – Hearing Issues
Finally, in ground three, Mr. Bowers claims that he was forced to attend the disciplinary
hearing despite not being screened and was denied the right to present any witnesses and evidence.
1. Refusal to Attend the Hearing
The Court does not find Mr. Bowers credible when he claims that he initially attended the
disciplinary hearing on March 15, 2017, but then asked for a break to return to his cell to obtain
evidence. Three IDOC staff members testified that they arrived at Mr. Bowers’s cell to escort him
to the disciplinary hearing on March 15, 2017, and he refused. The Court finds these witnesses
credible and that Mr. Bowers refused to attend the disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, the Court
finds that Mr. Bowers waived his right to attend the disciplinary hearing when he refused to leave
his cell. See Domka v. Portage County, 523 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that “[i]t is
without question that an individual may waive his procedural due process rights.”).
2. The Right to Present Witnesses and Evidence
Mr. Bowers argues that he was denied the right to present witnesses and evidence at the
hearing and this was a violation of due process. As discussed above, due process only requires
access to witnesses and evidence that are exculpatory. Rasheed–Bey, 969 F.2d at 361. Mr. Bowers
has never argued or claimed that the witnesses and evidence he was denied from presenting were
9
exculpatory. In fact, Mr. Bowers has never identified the witnesses or evidence he was denied from
presenting or explained why they were exculpatory.
The Court concludes that any denial of the right to present witnesses and evidence was
harmless because Mr. Bowers failed to show how the evidence could have aided his defense.
Accordingly, Mr. Bowers is not entitled to relief on this ground.
III. 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 Mr. Bowers to the relief he seeks.
The Court concludes that Mr. Bowers received advance written notice of the charges, did
not suffer a double jeopardy violation, waived his right to attend the disciplinary hearing, and any
denial of evidence or witnesses did not violate his due process rights as he has failed to demonstrate
that this error was harmful. Accordingly, Mr. Bowers’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus must
be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/2/2019
10
Distribution:
David A. Arthur
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
Katherine A. Cornelius
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
katherine.cornelius@atg.in.gov
Mario Garcia
BRATTAIN MINNIX GARCIA
mario@bmgindy.com
Terry Wayne Tolliver
BRATTAIN MINNIX GARCIA
terry@brattainminnix.com
11
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?