HUDGINS v. WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACIILITY

Filing 23

Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 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, Mr. Hudgins' 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 Larry J. McKinney on 2/10/2016. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

TERRY L. HUDGINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, Superintendent,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00011-LJM-MJD

Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Terry L. Hudgins for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison
disciplinary proceeding in ISF 13-12-0286 in which he was found guilty of assault/battery
on staff. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr. Hudgins’ habeas petition must be
denied.
I. Overview
Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of credit time, 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
1

v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th
Cir. 2000).
II. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On December 11, 2013, Correctional Officer Young issued a Report of Conduct
charging Mr. Hudgins with battery inflicting serious injury in violation of Code A102. The
Report of Conduct states:
On 12/11/13 at approx.. 2105 pm I, c/o J. Young #265, ordered Offender
Terry Hudgins DOC # 222359 to get out of the microwave because it was
count. Offender Hudgins refused my order so I walked over there to confront
him and he got confr[o]ntational. Offender Hudgins then started swinging at
my face making contact at least once or twice. Offender Hudgins was the[n]
able to grab ahold on me and slam me to the floor making me hit my head
and splitting it open. At this time QRT responded to the Sig. 10 and Hudgins
was put into custody and started resisting and head butting. At this time I
O.C.d Hudgins with a one second burst of pepper spray.
Dkt. 18-1.
Mr. Hudgins was notified of the charge on December 17, 2013, when he was
served with the Report of Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Screening
Report). The Screening Officer noted that Mr. Hudgins wanted to call three witnesses and
that he requested the video.
The Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on December 19, 2013. The
Hearing Officer found Mr. Hudgins guilty of battery in violation of Code A102. Mr. Hudgins
filed an appeal to the Facility Head on December 23, 2013, who denied the appeal on
January 17, 2014. Mr. Hudgins appealed to the Final Reviewing Authority. The appeal
was granted on June 13, 2014, and a rehearing was ordered for purposes of rescreening
Mr. Hudgins and ensuring that all evidence was provided and considered.

2

Mr. Hudgins was rescreened on the charge on June 19, 2014, at which time Mr.
Hudgins indicated that he did not want to call any witnesses but that he requested the
Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigation and the video. The Hearing Officer reviewed the IA
investigation outside of the presence of Mr. Hudgins and summarized it as follows:

The Disciplinary Hearing Officer has determined that allowing the offender
to view the IA Report of Investigation requested would in fact jeopardize the
security of the facility as listed in Executive Directive #00-27, Page 2,
paragraph 1. Instead, the report has been reviewed outside the presence
of the offender and the summary of the viewing is provided below.
Summary:
As relates to the charge in this case, Putnamville Correctional Facility IA
Case #13-ISF-0094 found that on 12/11/13 offender Hudgins was ordered
by staff to go to his bunk. A verbal and then physical altercation occurred
between offender Hudgins, Terry #222359 and staff. The offender chest
bumped officer Young.
Dkt. 18-14.
The Hearing Officer also provided a summary of the video:
The Disciplinary Hearing Body has determined that allowing the offender to
view the video evidence requested would in fact jeopardize the security of
the facility as listed in Executive Directive #00-27, Page 2, paragraph 1.
Instead, the video has been reviewed outside the presence of the offender
and the summary of the viewing is provided below.
Summary:
After reviewing the video of ISF 12 North B-side day room for the above
date and time, the following was witnessed.
21:03:16 (time on video) Offender Hudgins, Terry #222359 is standing in
front of the microwave.
21:03:34 Officer Young approaches offender Hudgins. Offender Hudgins
walks past Officer Young and goes towards a second officer (Burgess).
3

21:03:41 Officer Young approaches offender Hudgins from behind.
21:03:42 Offender Hudgins turns around. He bumps chests with officer
Young.
21:03:47 A physical altercation occurs between officer Young and offender
Hudgins.
21:03:51 Officer Burgess steps in to assist Officer Young.
21:04:52 Other staff begin to arrive on the scene to assist.
21:05:51 Staff have offender Hudgins restrained and are escorting him from
the door. Offender Young [sic] is resisting staff.
Dkt. 18-15.
The disciplinary hearing took place on July 21, 2014, at which time Mr. Hudgins
stated, “[i]f we bumped chests the c/o would have wrote it in his report. I have over 30
statements saying [] he used excessive force- The Capt used excessive force. I never
[r]esisted.” Dkt. 18-16.
In finding Mr. Hudgins guilty of battery in violation of Code A102, the Hearing
Officer considered the staff reports, Mr. Hudgins’ statement, the IA summary and
investigation report, the video summary, photos, and the physical force report. The
sanctions imposed included a written reprimand, one year of disciplinary segregation, the
deprivation of 90 days of earned credit time, and a demotion from credit class I to credit
class II. The Hearing Officer imposed the sanctions because of the seriousness of the
offense and the likelihood of sanctions having a corrective effect on the offender’s future
behavior. Id.
Mr. Hudgins’ appeals were denied. He filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus
on January 16, 2015.

4

III. Analysis
Mr. Hudgins alleges that his due process rights were violated during the
disciplinary proceeding. His claims are: 1) his request for the surveillance video tape was
not fully detailed by the hearing officer; and 2) the evidence does not support the charge
of a class A Code 102 assault with a weapon.
Mr. Hudgins first argues that if the hearing officer had sufficiently described the
video evidence, she would have noted that Officer Young confronted him with the
intention of starting a physical altercation and that Mr. Hudgins never resisted. In this
case, it was proper for the hearing officer to provide a video summary in light of the
determination that allowing the offender to view the video would jeopardize prison safety.
See Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2011) (an inmate is not entitled to
disclosure of an exculpatory surveillance video if allowing the inmate to see the tape
would create a security risk). The summary of the video was detailed and described the
conduct of Mr. Hudgins and the officers who were involved. The video evidence
demonstrated that Mr. Hudgins bumped chests with Officer Young which was followed by
a physical altercation between the two men. Even assuming Officer Young confronted
Mr. Hudgins, that would not be inconsistent with the finding that Mr. Hudgins also battered
the officer.
For his second claim, Mr. Hudgins asserts that the evidence does not support a
Code A battery with a weapon. Mr. Hudgins is mistaken as to the offense of which he was
convicted. Mr. Hudgins was not found guilty of a battery with a weapon. He was charged
and found guilty of a Code A102, battery inflicting serious bodily injury. The Disciplinary
Code for Adult Offenders Policy 02–04–101 Appendix defines a Class A offense

5

Assault/Battery (102) as: “[c]omitting battery/assault upon another person with a weapon
(including the throwing of body fluids or waste on another person) or inflicting serious
bodily injury.” (emphasis added). The confidential report of investigation discloses that
after the fight with Mr. Hudgins, Officer Young was taken to an outside hospital for
treatment.
The “some evidence” evidentiary standard in this type of case is much more lenient
than “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “by a preponderance.” See Moffat v. Broyles,
288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002) (hearing officer in prison disciplinary case “need not
show culpability beyond a reasonable doubt or credit exculpatory evidence.”). The “some
evidence” standard requires “only that the decision not be arbitrary or without support in
the record.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). The conduct
report, summary of video, confidential investigation, and photographs constitute sufficient
evidence to support the charge and conviction.
Mr. Hudgins was given notice and had an opportunity to defend the charge. The
hearing officer provided a written statement of the reasons for the finding of guilt and
described the evidence that was considered. There was sufficient evidence in the record
to support the decision. Under these circumstances, there were no violations of Mr.
Hudgins’ due process rights.
IV. 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.

6

Accordingly, Mr. Hudgins’ 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.

February 10, 2016
Date: __________________

________________________________
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Electronically registered counsel
TERRY L. HUDGINS
#222359
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only

7