WYATT v. SMITH

Filing 12

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition of Stephen B. Wyatt for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF15-10-0119. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Wyatt's habeas petition must be denied. 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 e ntitles Wyatt to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Wyatt'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.) Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/27/2017.(APD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

STEPHEN B. WYATT,
Petitioner,
vs.
BRIAN SMITH Superintendent,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00015-WTL-DKL

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Stephen B. Wyatt for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison
disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF15-10-0119. For the reasons explained in this Entry,
Wyatt’s habeas petition must be denied.
Discussion
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) (per curiam), 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).

B. The Disciplinary Proceeding
Wyatt brings the current action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison
disciplinary conviction for “attempt to give and receive” after a hearing that took place at the
Putnamville Correctional Facility. The sanctions imposed included a written reprimand, a
restriction of phone privileges, and the deprivation of 30 days of earned credit time. The
Hearing Officer imposed the sanctions because of the seriousness of the offense and the degree
to which the violation disrupted or endangered the security of the facility.
On October 15, 2015, DH Crowley issued a Report of Conduct charging Wyatt with
attempted giving and receiving in violation of Code B-240/233 (Ex. A-1). The Report of
Conduct states:
On 10/5/15 at approximately 1500 pm, I DH Crowley-Aramark FSS,
witnessed as Offender Stephen Wyatt (DOC # 161154) passed a plastic
wrapped tray out of the Diet window under the offender’s Lacto-Ovo tray. I
reached out to take back the wrapped tray when Offender Wyatt (DOC #
161154) took ahold of the tray and threw it away in a nearby trash can stating,
“It’s only bananas.” I retrieved the wrapped tray from the trash and opened it
to find nine (9) Barbeque beef patties inside. The tray was marked High
Calorie High Protein with the Offender’s name on it. Offender Wyatt (DOC
# 161154) was advised of this CAB and was identified by his state ID.
Wyatt was notified of the charge on October 12, 2015, when he was served with the Report of
Conduct and the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing (Screening Report). The Screening Officer noted
that Wyatt did not want to call any witnesses or request any evidence.
The Hearing Officer conducted a disciplinary hearing on October 16, 2015. The Hearing
Officer noted Wyatt’s statement:
This was my second day on the job. Was at law lib. Got to work right before
serving. There is a lot of guys that get a tray that is wrapped []. Aramark
Heather was standing right next to me and I pushed it out the window just
like I did the day before. Then she grabbed the tray and said what is this. I
said figured bananas. Then threw it in the trash and everything. I wasn’t there

when these were made.
(Exh. D). Relying on the staff reports and the statement of the offender, the Hearing Officer
determined that Wyatt had violated Code B-240/233. The sanctions imposed included a written
reprimand, a restriction of phone privileges, and the deprivation of 30 days of earned credit time.
The Hearing Officer imposed the sanctions because of the seriousness of the offense and the degree
to which the violation disrupted or endangered the security of the facility.
Wyatt filed an appeal to the Facility Head on October 19, 2015. The appeal was denied on
November 19, 2015. Wyatt then appealed to the Final Review Authority, who denied the appeal on
December 30, 2015.
C. Analysis
The only due process claim Wyatt raises is a challenge to the evidence presented to establish
that he violated Code B-240/233. Wyatt does not deny giving the tray to the offender and he admits
throwing the extra tray in the trash when questioned. Instead, he attempts to offer an explanation
for his actions, which is that he was performing his duties as he had been trained.
In a prison disciplinary proceeding, the standard is that a verdict of guilt must be supported
by at least “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. 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 rational adjudicator could readily conclude from
the content and surrounding circumstances of the conduct report in that Wyatt was attempting to
give and receive. Henderson v. United States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1993)
(a federal habeas court Awill overturn the . . . [conduct board’s] decision only if no reasonable
adjudicator could have found . . . [the petitioner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence
presented”), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 314 (1994); 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.”).
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 proceeding which entitles Wyatt to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, Wyatt’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: 4/27/17

Distribution:

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

STEPHEN B. WYATT
161154
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
All Electronically Registered Counsel