DANIELS v. REGAL ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION RAMAR DANIELS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 1:21-cv-01607-SEB-MJD ) DENNIS REGAL, ) ) Respondent. ) Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Final Judgment Ra'Mar Daniels' petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as WVD 01-09-0087. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr. Daniels' habeas petition must be denied. A. Overview Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits or of credit-earning class without due process. Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 2016); Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Rhoiney v. Neal, 723 F. App'x 347, 348 (7th Cir. 2018). The due process requirement is satisfied with: 1) the issuance of at least 24 hours advance written notice of the charge; 2) a limited opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence to an impartial decision-maker; 3) a written statement articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it; and 4) "some evidence in the record" to support the finding of guilt. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974). B. The Disciplinary Proceeding On September 11, 2001, Officer Martindale issued a Report of Conduct ("Conduct Report") charging Mr. Daniels with a violation of Code B-236, Disorderly Conduct. Dkt. 6-1. The Conduct Report states: On 9-11-01 at approximately 7:20 pm I (C/O K. Martindale) observed the cell door of KHU-117 moving in and out. It appeared to be struck from within. Yelling and screaming was also coming from within the cell. Offenders Daniels, Ramar #104542 and Ortiz, Gonzalo #102025 resides in cell 117. Id. Mr. Daniels received a copy of the Conduct Report and the Screening Report on September 14, 2001. Dkts. 6-1, 6-2. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, requested a lay advocate, and asked to call Offender Ortiz as a witness. Dkt. 6-2. Offender Chaplin agreed to serve as a lay advocate for Mr. Daniels, dkt. 6-3, and Offender Ortiz provided this written statement: "Ramar wasn't one who banged on the door. He was asleep until the allowed us out of the cells at 8:00 p.m.," dkt. 6- 5. A disciplinary hearing was held on September 19, 2001. Dkt. 6-5. At the hearing, Mr. Daniels pleaded not guilty to violating Code B-236 and stated he would plead guilty to violating Code C-360. Id. Considering the Conduct Report, and Mr. Daniels' statement, the hearing officer found Mr. Daniels guilty of violating Code C-360, Disruptive Conduct. Id. The sanctions imposed included a written reprimand, loss of phone privileges for one month, and deprivation of 30 days of earned credit time.1 Id. 1 The hearing officer also imposed a suspended sanction of three months disciplinary segregation. Dkt. 6-5. Mr. Daniels did not file an appeal to the Facility Head or the Final Reviewing Authority. Dkt. 6-7 at 44. Mr. Daniels filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 almost 20 years after his disciplinary conviction. C. Analysis Mr. Daniels presents three challenges to his disciplinary conviction: (1) insufficient evidence supports the determination of guilt; (2) he was denied a hearing on the disciplinary charge; and (3) he did not receive a lay advocate. Dkt. 1 at 3-4. In Indiana, only the issues raised in a timely appeal to the Facility Head and then to the Indiana Department of Correction Appeals Review Officer or Final Reviewing Authority may be raised in a subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Eads v. Hanks, 280 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 2002); Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002). The respondent contends that Mr. Daniels failed to exhaust the administrative appeals process and thus is procedurally barred from pursuing relief under § 2254. Dkt. 6 at 9-11. Mr. Daniels has not challenged the respondent's argument or shown any basis for overcoming his procedural default. See Johnson v. Foster, 786 F.3d 501, 505 (7th Cir. 2015) (recognizing instances where a court "may excuse a procedural default"). Because the undisputed record reflects that Mr. Daniels did not timely exhaust his available administrative remedies, he is not entitled to relief under § 2254. D. Conclusion "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. Mr. Daniels is not entitled to the relief he seeks because he did not exhaust his available administrative remedies. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and this action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: RAMAR DANIELS 104542 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 4490 West Reformatory Road PENDLETON, IN 46064 David Corey INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL david.corey@atg.in.gov