Jordan v. Superintendent, 3:15-cv-00487

Matthew K. Jordan, a pro se prisoner, was found guilty at a Westville Correctional Facility disciplinary hearing (WCC 15-06-574) of Sexual Act with a Visitor (A-114) on June 27, 2015.
Sanctions imposed: loss of 90 days earned credit time and demotion to Credit Class 2.
Jordan claimed (1) insufficient evidence the officer could have seen his hand in the visitor’s skirt/groin area, and (2) denial of access to witness statements and video evidence.
The conduct report described the officer seeing Jordan with “his hand up the skirt of his visitor…in the groin area.”
Jordan requested only one witness (Officer Vasquez) and no physical evidence or video in the screening; Vasquez provided a statement and Jordan had previously viewed the visitation video with a sergeant, who said it was inconclusive.
The district court reviewed the record under the "some evidence" standard and denied habeas relief, concluding the conduct report and available statements supplied sufficient evidence and that Jordan was not denied exculpatory evidence.

Issue	Jordan's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support guilty finding	Officer could not have seen Jordan’s hand in visitor’s skirt; guards positioned to obscure view	Conduct report alone and officer statement provide at least some evidence of guilt	Finding upheld: conduct report furnished "some evidence" supporting guilt
Denial of requested witness evidence	DHO denied access to witness statements (e.g., sergeant, later-available guard statement)	Jordan only requested Officer Vasquez who provided a statement; other witnesses/statements were not exculpatory or not timely requested	No due process violation: Jordan received requested witness; other evidence was inconclusive or not timely produced
Denial of video evidence	Video would show innocence	Jordan did not request video at screening; he had viewed the video and it was inconclusive	No due process violation: inconclusive video is not exculpatory
Right to present additional after-the-fact statements	Later-offered guard statement would show accusations were bogus	Statements offered months later were not timely; DHO did not prevent timely submission	Not a basis for relief: opportunity to timely request/submit was not withheld

McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999) (conduct report can constitute sufficient evidence in prison disciplinary proceedings)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard governs revocation of good time credits)
Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining lenient evidentiary standard for disciplinary findings)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prisoners have right to present relevant, exculpatory evidence in disciplinary hearings)
Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1992) (due process requires only access to exculpatory witnesses/evidence)
Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1996) (exculpatory evidence must directly undermine the record evidence of guilt)