MONS v. KEEVER

Filing 12

Entry and Order Dismissing Action - In a proceeding identified as No. REF 13-02-0019, Dennis L. Mons was disciplined for violating prison rules by engaging in a conspiracy to commit trafficking. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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 1/23/2014.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

DENNIS MONS,
Petitioner,
vs.
STANLEY KNIGHT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-162-JMS-WGH

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
In a proceeding identified as No. REF 13-02-0019, Dennis L. Mons was disciplined for
violating prison rules by engaging in a conspiracy to commit trafficking. The basis of the charge
was staff’s inspection of a letter sent to Mons from Rick Reader of Ft. Wayne, Indiana in
February 2013. Reader’s letter to Mons made reference to a “device” and explained that it was a
“bad idea” to “do the device.” The letter continues: “This sort of thinking is the way to jack off
good time, or loose[sic] time cuts. Sooner or later it would be found, as they always are and you
would pay the price.”
Mons now challenges the validity of No. REF 13-02-0019, contending that the decision
of the hearing officer was not supported by sufficient evidence.
A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of demonstrating that
he "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28
U.S.C. ' 2254(a). When the challenged custody results from a prison disciplinary proceeding,

due process requires that the decision be supported by "some evidence." Superintendent v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445 (1985).
Mons contends that hearing officer’s finding of guilt was not supported by sufficient
evidence. This contention, however, is refuted by the conduct report itself, which was part of the
evidence considered. 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 conduct report alone may suffice as Asome evidence.@ Id.; see also Webb v.
Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (even Ameager@ proof is sufficient). Here, the
conduct report narrates that Reader and Mons had exchanged thoughts about attempting to
introduce contraband into the prison. Although the evidence before the disciplinary board must
"point to the accused's guilt," Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir. 1989), Aonly
evidence that was presented to the Adjustment Committee is relevant to this analysis.@ Hamilton
v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992); 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."). The evidence here was constitutionally sufficient.
Mons’ argument that he was denied the protection afforded by Hill is refuted by the
expanded record. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the
action dismissed.
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
01/23/2014
Date: __________________

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

Distribution:
Dennis Mons
930902
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West US Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
All electronically registered counsel