RUSH v. WARDEN
1:23-cv-00308
S.D. Ind.Sep 12, 2024Background
- Damon Rush, an inmate at New Castle Correctional Facility, was found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing for conspiracy to traffic contraband (specifically, Suboxone strips) into the prison.
- Evidence included use of Rush's phone account by another inmate (Maple) to communicate frequently with Maple's mother about trafficking, Rush's PIN and account involvement, and deposits made by Maple's mother to Rush's phone account.
- Packages containing contraband were found in the prison mailroom, traced to Maple's mother.
- Rush received notice of the charges, a hearing with a lay advocate, and an opportunity to contest the allegations, but was found guilty and sanctioned with a 180-day loss of credit time and a credit class demotion.
- Rush appealed the disciplinary finding through administrative channels and was denied at each stage, leading him to file a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Rush's Argument | Warden's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | No direct evidence of conspiracy; denied providing his PIN; no participation shown | Circumstantial evidence links Rush to trafficking scheme | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to support finding |
| Right to confront accusers | Wasn't allowed to confront accusers | Claim not made in admin appeal; no such right in prison proceedings | Procedurally defaulted; also, no right to confrontation |
| Access to evidence | Not able to review all evidence | Claim not made in admin appeal | Procedurally defaulted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining due process protections in Indiana prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2007) (summarizes required due process in prison disciplinary cases)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (sets forth the 'some evidence' standard for prison disciplinary findings)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (establishes due process rights in prison disciplinary hearings, but limits confrontation rights)
- Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000) (court does not re-weigh evidence from prison disciplinary proceedings)