CHAMBERS v. BROWN

Filing 8

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition of Jonathan Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. WCC 12-07-0634. Chambers' habeas petition must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/29/2013.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JONATHAN CHAMBERS,
Petitioner,
v.
MARK LEVENHAGEN,
Respondent.1

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00119-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Jonathan Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison
disciplinary proceeding identified as No. WCC 12-07-0634. For the reasons explained in this
Entry, Chambers’ habeas petition must be denied.
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), 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).

1

Superintendent Mark Levenhagen, in his official capacity, is substituted for former Superintendent
Brown pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

B. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On July 19, 2012, Officer Davila issued Chambers a conduct report charging him with
attempting to assault an officer. Officer Davila reported that on July 18, 2012, at approximately
10:45 while the power to the prison was out due to a storm, he and another officer made a
security round and while passing Chambers’ cell, Chambers charged at the officers yelling “Get
them, there’s no cameras!” Chambers was brought into the dayroom and placed in mechanical
restraints. He was then escorted to a holding area by another officer.
On July 31, 2012, Chambers was notified of the charge of attempted assault on staff and
given a copy of the report of conduct and the screening report. He was notified of his rights, pled
not guilty and did not request the appointment of a lay advocate. He did not request any
witnesses or physical evidence. A hearing was conducted on August 2, 2012.
The disciplinary hearing officer found Chambers guilty of the charge and issued the
following sanctions: 365 days disciplinary segregation, 365 days earned credit time deprivation,
and a demotion in credit class. In finding Chambers guilty the hearing officer considered the
conduct report, staff witness statements, and Chamber’s statement.
Chambers appealed this disciplinary proceeding through the administrative process
without success. Chambers now seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that his due
process rights were denied.
C. Analysis
Chambers argues that he was denied due process because the decision to discipline him
was not supported by “some evidence.” He contends that he was convicted of assault and there
was no evidence that he hit either officer or that they suffered any physical injuries.

Although the Report of Disciplinary Hearing lists the offense as assault on staff, the
conduct report and all subsequent appeal papers refer to the charge as attempted assault on staff.
There was no requirement to show actual injury to the officers.
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). “In
reviewing a decision for ‘some evidence,’ courts are not required to conduct an examination of
the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the evidence, but only
determine whether the prison disciplinary board's decision to revoke good time credits has some
factual basis.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). The Report of Disciplinary Hearing reflects that
the hearing officer considered staff reports, evidence from witnesses, and the statement of the
offender. A rational adjudicator could readily conclude from the content of the conduct report
and statement of Officer Creech that Chambers charged at Officer Davila and Officer Creech,
yelling “get them, there’s no cameras.” This supports the finding that Chambers was guilty of
attempted assault on staff. Henderson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th
Cir. 1993) (a federal habeas court Awill overturn the [hearing officer’s] decision only if no
reasonable adjudicator could have found [the petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the
evidence presented.”); 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.”).
Chambers’ contention that there was no evidence to support the charge is contradicted by the
record.
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 proceedings. Accordingly, Chambers 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.

07/29/2013
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Jonathan Chambers
No. 219888
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838-1111
All electronically registered counsel