TRIPP v. SMITH
ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Accordingly, Tripp'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 Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/18/2017.(DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
BRIAN SMITH IDOC,
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Terry Tripp for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary
proceeding identified as No. ISF 17-01-0142. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Tripp’s
habeas petition must be denied.
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
On January 4, 2017, Sgt. Helton wrote a Report of Conduct that charged Tripp with Class
B offense 215, Unauthorized Destruction of Property. The Conduct Report states:
On January 04, 2017 at approximately 16:00 hours, I, Sgt. Helton was in DRHU,
B-Range, Office reviewing Camera Observation Cell D13 on Date: 01/04/2017 at
approximate Time: 14:16 hours I observe offender Terry Tripp #103679 in
DRHU, Cell-D13 ripping/tearing open the mattress in the cell. At approximate
time 14:23 hours offender Tripp begins to remove the cover completely. I
identified Terry Tripp #103679 by his State issued identification and informed
him of this Report of Conduct.
DRHU is the Disciplinary Restricted Housing Unit at Putnamville. On January 13, 2017, Tripp
was notified of the disciplinary charge when he was served with the Conduct Report and the
Notice of Disciplinary Hearing. Tripp was notified of his rights, pleaded not guilty, and did not
request a lay advocate. Tripp did not request any witnesses or physical evidence.
The hearing officer conducted the disciplinary hearing in ISF17-01-0142 on January 19,
2017. 1 Tripp’s comment was “The day this happened I was cutting myself. I’ve been going
through a lot. I’m guilty but here lately I’m going through it & no one will help.” The hearing
officer found Tripp guilty of the charge of Destroying State Property. In making this
determination, the hearing officer considered staff reports and Tripp’s statement, and the
pictures. The reason for the decision was “H/O accepts plea.” The sanctions included an earned
credit time deprivation of 30 days, and imposition of suspended sanctions and demotion from
Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. The hearing officer imposed the sanctions because of the
likelihood of the sanctions having a corrective effect on the offender’s future behavior.
Tripp’s appeals were denied and he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Tripp challenges the disciplinary action against him arguing that he suffers from mental
illness and the hearing officer did not review his mental health record or consider his mental
health status in violation of Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) policy. He also contends
that the sanctions were overly harsh.
1. Tripp’s Mental Health
Tripp first contends that the hearing officer violated DOC policy by failing to review his
mental health record and not taking his mental state into account when imposing sanctions. But
the violation of DOC policy alone does not rise to the level of a due process violation. See
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas relief is only available for
violations of U.S. Constitution or other federal laws); Hester v. McBride, 966 F. Supp. 765, 77475 (N.D. Ind. 1997). And Tripp did not request any witnesses or evidence to support his claims.
Tripp has therefore failed to show any due process violation based on his claim that the hearing
officer failed to review his mental health.
Tripp also argues that the sanctions against him were overly harsh. Tripp was found
guilty of Class B offense 215, Destruction of State Property. The sanctions were a written
reprimand, 30 days loss of telephone privileges, restitution, an earned credit time deprivation of
30 days, and demotion from credit Class 1 to credit Class 2. Under DOC policy, the maximum
allowable sanctions for a Class B offense are three months in disciplinary segregation, 30 days of
restricted privileges, 90 days of lost earned credit time, and a one-grade reduction in credit class.
In other words, Tripp could have been sanctioned with a more severe credit time deprivation. In
denying Tripp’s second administrative appeal the Final Review Authority noted that “[t]he
sanctions imposed were well within the guidelines of the Disciplinary Code for Adult
“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 Tripp to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, Tripp’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.
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Frances Hale Barrow
DEPUTY 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?