HAYES v. ZATECKY
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - Mr. Hayes' 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 10/13/2020.(JDH)
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 135
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Quintero Hayes' petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges his conviction in prison
disciplinary case ISR 19-01-0219. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Hayes' petition is
Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits or of credit-earning
class without due process. Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 2016); Scruggs v. Jordan,
485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Rhoiney v. Neal, 723 F. App'x 347, 348 (7th Cir. 2018).
The due process requirement is satisfied with: 1) the issuance of at least 24 hours advance written
notice of the charge; 2) a limited opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence to an impartial
decision-maker; 3) a written statement articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the
evidence justifying it; and 4) "some evidence in the record" to support the finding of guilt.
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974).
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 136
B. Disciplinary Proceeding
On January 28, 2019, Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) Correctional Officer A.
Parrott wrote a Report of Conduct charging Mr. Hayes with a violation of Code 102, battery, as
On 1/28/2019 at approximately 8:55 PM I officer A. Parrott was walking down the
6C range when Officer C. Burton was escorting Offender Hays, Quintero #213543
down the range for a shower. As Offender Hays #23543 passed I stopped so he
could get by and he Purposely shoulder bumped me with his left shoulder on my
Dkt. 12-1 (errors in original).
On January 31, 2019, Mr. Hayes received a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing Screening
Report notifying him of the charge. Dkt. 12-2. He pled not guilty, requested a lay advocate, asked
to call two inmate witnesses, and requested the video of the incident. Id.
Offender Martin provided the following statement:
There was a bunch of people walking on the range and I never seen the inmate
Hayes hit or shove the c/o – He did stumble on the messed up tile and almost fall
around my cell – I never seen him batter anyone.
Offender Turner provided a statement that there were a least four other people going in the opposite
direction, and that Mr. Hayes accidently bumped into whoever was there. Dkt. 12-8.
Officer C. Burton provided a statement as follows:
On 1/28/2019 at approximately 8:55 PM I, Officer C. Burton was escorting
Offender Hays, Quintero #213543 down the 6C range for a shower. As Offender
Hayes passed Officer A. Parrot, he purposely assaulted Officer A. Parrott on her
right shoulder with his left shoulder. I, Ofc. C. Burton, then escorted Ofd. Hayes
back to cell 16-6c with no further incident.
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 137
The disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) determined that allowing Mr. Hayes to view the
video would jeopardize the safety and/or security of the facility. Dkt. 12-5. The DHO prepared a
summation of the video on February 4, 2019.
Upon reviewing the incident that occurred for case ISR 19-01-0219 I, Officer C.
Cooke, did see:
9:05 pm Custody staff is escorting offender Hayes down the range to shower area.
Another offender with custody staff is behind them, officer Parrot is walking
09:05:52 Officer Parrot moves to her right to allow passage for offender Hayes and
custody staff escorting him. Offender Hayes moves to his left (he is facing Officer
09:05:52 Offender Hayes makes contact with Officer Parrot with his left shoulder,
on her right shoulder. Officer Parrot is seen reacting to the shoulder contact be being
moved and her body swinging back.
09:05:53 Officer Parrot and other custody staff react to the shoulder strike
09:05:54 Offender Hayes looks intently ahead of him, he does not try to pardon his
sudden movement and shoulder strike of Officer Parrot
09:06:03 Escorting custody staff turn offender Hayes around and secures him back
in his cell.
Id. (errors in original). The DHO noted that Mr. Hayes was unable to sign the copy of the video
summary due to security but indicated he received it on February 4, 2019 at 9:46 a.m. Id.
Mr. Hayes' disciplinary hearing was held on February 5, 2019. Dkt. 12-4. The report noted
that Mr. Hayes was asked during the hearing if he had reviewed the video and he stated "yes." Id.
Mr. Hayes stated that he "did bump her, there were 5 people on the range" and he "didn't do it
intentional." Id. The DHO reviewed the conduct report, statement of offender, evidence of
witnesses, the still photographs from the video, and the video of the incident and found Mr. Hayes
guilty. Id. The DHO explained in her reason for decision that Mr. Hayes stated he did review the
video, the conduct was clear that the offender had enough room to walk down the hallway without
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 138
making contact, and that the contact looked intentional. Id. The DHO recorded that when the
hearing was complete, Mr. Hayes stated: "I'm gonna tell them I never got my video! I'll win that
on appeal!" Id. Mr. Hayes' sanctions included a deprivation of 365-days' earned credit time and a
two-step demotion in credit class. Id.
Mr. Hayes appealed to the Facility Head and the IDOC Final Reviewing Authority, but
neither appeal was successful. Dkt. 12-9; dkt. 12-10. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. The respondent filed a return on January 31, 2020.
Dkt. 12. Though the Court granted Mr. Hayes an extension through March 27, 2020, to file a reply,
he did not do so. Dkt. 19.
Mr. Hayes raises five grounds in his petition: (1) he was denied a fair hearing before an
impartial decision maker because the DHO lied about him being able to review the video evidence
before the hearing; (2) the DHO was not impartial because she considered his statement regarding
an appeal in finding him guilty; (3) he should not have been charged with a violation of Code 102,
but a Code 212; (4) he was denied the video evidence he requested; and (5) the DHO forged and
falsified evidence to cover up Mr. Hayes not receiving video evidence. Dkt. 1 at 4-7. The Court
restates these grounds as challenges to the impartiality of the DHO; (2) denial of evidence; and (3)
sufficiency of the evidence.
1. Impartial decision maker
Mr. Hayes asserts multiple ways he believes the DHO was not impartial at his disciplinary
hearing, none of which are successful. A prisoner in a disciplinary action has the right to be heard
before an impartial decision maker. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. However, hearing officers "are entitled
to a presumption of honesty and integrity" absent clear evidence to the contrary. Piggie v. Cotton,
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 139
342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003); see Perotti v Marberry, 355 F. App'x 39, 43 (7th Cir. 2009)
(citing Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). Moreover, the "constitutional standard for
impermissible bias is high," and hearing officers "are not deemed biased simply because they
presided over a prisoner's previous disciplinary proceeding" or because they are employed by the
prison. Piggie, 342 F.3d at 666. The presumption is overcome—and an inmate's right to an
impartial decision maker is breached—in rare cases, such as when the hearing officer has been
"directly or substantially involved in the factual events underlying the disciplinary charges, or in
the investigation thereof." Id. at 667.
Mr. Hayes contends that the DHO lied when she indicated that he was provided with and
had reviewed the video review form. 1 Dkt. 1. He further alleges that the DHO falsified the
documents 2 in the record to cover up his failure to see the video or obtain a copy of its summation.
Id. The DHO attested that she prepared a video evidence review form and had unit Officer Conde
deliver the form to Mr. Hayes – due to a security threat – while she watched from the end of the
range. Dkt. 12-12, ¶¶ 4-5. The record reflects that Mr. Hayes received the form at approximately
The Court notes that the disciplinary hearing report states that the DHO asked Mr. Hayes if he
reviewed the "video," and he stated "yes." Dkt. 12-4. The DHO's use of the word "video"
reasonably could not have meant the actual video, as she had determined that the petitioner's
viewing of the actual footage would jeopardize safety and security of the facility. Dkt. 12-5. The
DHO explained in her affidavit that at the hearing she was referring to the video evidence review
form. Dkt. 12-12, ¶ 8. Mr. Hayes' arguments that this creates an inconsistency rendering her biased
are without merit.
Mr. Hayes compares two copies of the video evidence review form, Exhibits H and J. Dkt. 1 at
7; dkt. 12-10 at 7-8. The respondent states that Exhibit H is likely the copy saved in the case file
and administrative record with the DHO's notes that Mr. Hayes was unable to sign it due to security
reasons, and that Exhibit J is likely the copy that Officer Conde left with Mr. Hayes. Dkt. 12 at 13.
The DHO attested to bringing a copy of the review form to the hearing for Mr. Hayes but that he
came with his own. The Court finds Mr. Hayes' comparison of these documents does not show
falsification or forgery on the part of the DHO, and as such, Mr. Hayes' arguments are without
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 140
9:46 a.m. the day before the hearing and indicated he had reviewed it at the beginning of the
hearing. Id., ¶ 6; dkt. 12-4; dkt. 12-5. The DHO further stated that she had a copy of the form to
provide to Mr. Hayes at the hearing but "he had the original copy that was delivered to him by
Officer Conde the day before." Dkt. 12-12, ¶ 8. Mr. Hayes did not raise issues with the video
review until after the hearing in request for interview forms to the DHO and Officer Conde. 3 Dkt.
12-10. The DHO informed him she had pulled the video and confirmed that Officer Conde had
delivered the form to him and attached a copy of Mr. Hayes affirming his review of it at the hearing.
Id.; Dkt. 12-12, ¶ 10.
Mr. Hayes argues that the DHO improperly considered his statement about raising an issue
with not receiving the video in his appeal and that he would win, in her decision to find him guilty
of battery. The DHO's documentation indicates this comment was made after the hearing had
concluded. She attested that she "had already determined that Hayes was guilty . . . and read the
sanctions off to him" but that she recorded the statement if he were to raise an appeal "based on a
false statement." Dkt. 12-12, ¶ 9. The DHO stated a basis for her decision that the conduct was
clear from the video that Mr. Hayes had enough room to avoid making contact with Officer Parrott
and the action looked intentional. Dkt. 12-4. There is nothing in the record, nor has Mr. Hayes
provided evidence, other than his own assumption, to indicate that the DHO considered the
The Court notes that the respondent challenges the authenticity of Mr. Hayes' request for
interview to Officer Conde as the handwriting is similar to Mr. Hayes' handwriting, the officer's
supervisor was referred to by a nickname and not his full name, and the officers at the facility are
able to deliver and obtain evidence in prison disciplinary cases. Dkt. 12 at 9-10. The Court
acknowledges the respondent's argument but need not make a determination on the authenticity of
this document as the Court finds enough information in the record, via the DHO's documentation,
the video review form, and Mr. Hayes' admission at the hearing, that Mr. Hayes was able to review
a summation of the video. The Court does caution the petitioner about the severity of presenting
forged or falsified documentation to the Court. In addition, in the event Mr. Hayes was not
provided with the review form, the video did not amount to a denial of material and exculpatory
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 141
statement Mr. Hayes made after the hearing in her decision. Her notation of the statement does not
The Court finds no evidence in the record that suggests that the DHO directly or
substantially participated in the factual events or investigation underlying Mr. Hayes' disciplinary
charge. Accordingly, he is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.
2. Denial of evidence
Though there is evidence in the record to support that Mr. Hayes was provided with the
video review, any factual dispute about the video review does not save Mr. Hayes' argument that
he was denied evidence.
The prison staff is not required to produce to a petitioner video footage. The record shows
that Mr. Hayes was not allowed to review the actual video due to safety and security concerns.
Due process requires "prison officials to disclose all material exculpatory evidence," unless that
evidence "would unduly threaten institutional concerns." Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847 (7th
Cir. 2011). Evidence is exculpatory if it undermines or contradicts the finding of guilt, see id., and
it is material if disclosing it creates a "reasonable probability" of a different result, Toliver v.
McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766, 780-81 (7th Cir. 2008). When prison administrators believe a valid
justification exists to withhold evidence, "'due process requires that the district court conduct an
in camera review' to assess whether the undisclosed [evidence] is exculpatory." Johnson v. Brown,
681 F. App'x 494, 497 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 679 (7th Cir.
2003)). As the petitioner, it is Mr. Hayes' burden to establish that any evidence he was denied was
material and exculpatory. See Piggie, 344 F.3d at 678 (noting the petitioner did not "explain how
[the requested witness's] testimony would have helped him" and thus "the district court properly
denied relief" on the petitioner's claim that he was wrongfully denied a witness).
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 142
Mr. Hayes contends the video evidence would have helped him prepare a defense and
would have shown the number of people on the range and that his actions were accidental, not
intentional. Dkt. 1; dkt. 12-2. Video of the incident existed in this case and depicts a different story.
The DHO reviewed the video and wrote a summation before the hearing. The Court finds the
DHO's summation depicts an accurate account of the incident as the video shows that Mr. Hayes
had room to move down the range without making contact with Officer Parrott, he made contact
with her shoulder, the officers visibly reacted to the shoulder strike, and Mr. Hayes did not attempt
to "pardon his sudden movement and shoulder strike." Dkt. 12-5. The DHO's review of the video
interpreted Mr. Hayes' conduct as intentional. The Court has reviewed the ex parte filing of the
video at docket 15 and finds no exculpatory evidence.
Accordingly, habeas relief on this ground is denied.
3. Sufficiency of evidence
Mr. Hayes contends that he was charged incorrectly with a violation of Code A-102,
battery, because he did not batter anyone with a weapon or bodily fluid and did not cause serious
injury. Dkt. 1 at 5.
Courts may not reweigh evidence already presented at a prison disciplinary hearing. Viens
v. Daniels, 871 F.2d 1328, 1328 (7th Cir. 1989). Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are
governed by the "some evidence" standard. "[A] hearing officer’s decision need only rest on 'some
evidence' logically supporting it and demonstrating that the result is not arbitrary." Ellison, 820
F.3d at 274 (7th Cir. 2016); see Eichwedel v. Chandler, 696 F.3d 660, 675 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The
some evidence standard . . . is satisfied if there is any evidence in the record that could support the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.") (citation and quotation marks omitted). The "some
evidence" standard is much more lenient than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Moffat v.
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 143
Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002). "[T]he relevant question is whether there is any
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Hill,
472 U.S. at 455-56. The conduct report "alone" can "provide[ ] 'some evidence' for the . . .
decision." McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). Nonetheless, in a safeguard
against arbitrary revocation of an inmate's good-time credits, a court must "satisfy [itself] that the
evidence the board did rely on presented 'sufficient indicia of reliability.'" Meeks v. McBride, 81
F.3d 717, 720 (7th Cir. 1996). To challenge the reliability of evidence introduced during a prison
disciplinary hearing, there must be "some affirmative indication that a mistake may have been
made." Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2000).
Offense Code A-102, is defined as "[k]nowingly or intentionally touching another person
in a rude, insolent, or angry manner; or in a rude, insolent, or angry manner placing any bodily
fluid or bodily waste on another person." Dkt. 12-11 at 1. This definition and categorization existed
prior to and at the time of Mr. Hayes' conduct and conviction. Proceeding under this definition,
the Court finds that some evidence exists to support the DHO's decision that Mr. Hayes battered
Officer Parrott when he intentionally ran into her shoulder in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.
Officer Parrott's conduct report alone states that Mr. Hayes purposefully bumped her with his left
shoulder, and this by itself is sufficient under the "some evidence" standard." However, additional
evidence of video, still photographs, and another officer's witness statement provide further
corroboration sufficient to support the finding of guilt.
Accordingly, Mr. Hayes is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.
"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,
Case 1:19-cv-04459-JMS-DLP Document 21 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 144
disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there
was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Mr. Hayes to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, Mr. Hayes' petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
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?