FOX v. SUPERINTENDENT
1:16-cv-00521
S.D. Ind.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Ramon Fox, an Indiana prisoner, was charged in prison disciplinary case IYC 15-11-0128 with assault and battery based on a conduct report and camera footage of an October 19, 2015 dorm fight.
- Investigation and video review described Fox among a group who assaulted Offender Lawson; the video reviewer reported observing Fox kicking Lawson repeatedly.
- Fox was notified of the charge, pled not guilty, requested witnesses and the video, and provided a statement at the hearing asserting ‘‘Nothing to say. It was a mistake.’’
- Witness statements from Lawson and Isaacs indicated Fox attempted to de-escalate or assist Lawson; another witness gave uncertain testimony.
- A hearing officer reviewed staff reports, witness statements, and the video, found Fox guilty, and imposed sanctions including 60 days’ credit-time forfeiture and loss of privileges.
- Fox exhausted administrative appeals and filed a § 2254 habeas petition arguing (1) evidentiary inconsistencies undermined reliability and (2) absence of segregation as a sanction proves he was not guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support guilty finding | Fox: inconsistencies among conduct report, investigation, and video undermine reliability | Respondent: conduct report, investigation, and video provide "some evidence" supporting guilt | Court: Evidence (including video showing Fox kicking Lawson) met Hill "some evidence" standard; petition denied |
| Credibility of inmate witnesses | Fox: witness statements that he attempted to de-escalate show innocence | Respondent: hearing officer need not accept inmate testimony over other evidence | Court: Credibility is for the hearing officer; contrary testimony does not entitle Fox to relief |
| Sanctions consistency with conviction (failure to place in segregation) | Fox: not segregated, so punishment inconsistent with conviction, implying innocence | Respondent: segregation is not mandatory; ADC allows any allowable sanction or combination | Court: Sanctions imposed were permitted by ADC; absence of segregation does not negate guilt |
| Due process adequacy of disciplinary procedure | Fox: procedural or arbitrary infirmities deprived him of due process | Respondent: advance notice, opportunity to present evidence, impartial decision, written statement, and some evidence were provided | Court: Due process requirements satisfied under Wolff/Hill; no arbitrary action found |
Key Cases Cited
- Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2004) (prisoners cannot be deprived of credit time without due process)
- Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001) (credit-earning class cannot be revoked without due process)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (prison disciplinary finding must be supported by "some evidence")
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (Sup. Ct. 1974) (procedural due process requirements for prison disciplinary hearings)
- Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003) (application of Wolff and Hill standards)
- Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000) (due process in prison disciplinary context)
- McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999) (court reviews only whether some factual basis supports disciplinary decision)
- Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996) (limitations on weighing evidence under Hill)
- Viens v. Daniels, 871 F.2d 1328 (7th Cir. 1989) (exculpatory evidence generally immaterial if it does not directly undercut relied-upon evidence)
- Henderson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 1994) (habeas relief appropriate only if no reasonable adjudicator could have found guilt on the evidence presented)