DAVIS v. SEVIER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRANT DAVIS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK
)
MARK SEVIER Warden, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Brant Davis' petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks relief from his
conviction and sanctions in prison disciplinary case NCF 23-08-0804. For the
following reasons, his petition is 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).
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
B. 	The Disciplinary Proceeding
On August 18, 2023, Investigator Kelly wrote a conduct report in case NCF
23-08-0804, 	charging 	Mr. 	Davis 	with 	offense 	B-216, 	sexual 	conduct. 	The
conduct report stated:
Offender Davis admitted to sexual activity in the Rec Building
Restroom while in J Unit on 8/3/23. Geo Corporate was notified via
email on 8/18/23 and substantiated the allegation.
Dkt. 9-1.
On August 17, 2023, Mr. Davis signed a statement: "We were at gym and
Jordan was talking about giving me head so we went to the bathroom and he did
then we agreed to deny it so there wouldn't be any drama on the yard." Dkt. 9-2
(quoted as in original).
On August 18, the screening officer notified Mr. Davis of the charge B-216,
sexual 	conduct, 	and 	provided 	him 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	conduct 	report 	and 	the
disciplinary hearing notice (screening report). Dkt. 9-3. The screening officer
advised Mr. Davis of his rights, and Mr. Davis pled not guilty. Id. Mr. Davis did
not waive his right to 24 hours' notice before the hearing. Id. He requested Jimmy
Olsen, 	Eddy, 	and 	Monroe 	as 	witnesses 	to 	testify 	as 	to 	whether 	anything
happened. Id.
Offender Eddie Sherrill stated that he was there and "nothing happen, its
only rumors." Dkt. 9-6 at 1. Offender Jimmy Olson stated, "I didn't see anything
happen, yes I was there." Id. at 2. Offender Jordan Monroe stated, "I was there.
Nothing happen." Id. at 3.
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
On August 24, the disciplinary hearing officer ("DHO") held the hearing in
case NCF 23-08-804. Dkt. 9-4. Mr. Davis pled not guilty at the hearing and
stated, "I lied on my written statement." Id. Mr. Davis asked to submit a grievance
as evidence, which the DHO states under oath that he permitted and considered.
Dkt. 9-8. Mr. Davis did not ask to present any evidence other than his grievance.
Id. The DHO found Mr. Davis guilty based on staff reports, Mr. Davis' oral
statement, evidence from witnesses, and physical evidence (Mr. Davis' written
statement). Dkt. 9-4. The DHO imposed sanctions, including a one-step credit
class demotion and a 90-day loss of earned credit time. Id.
Mr. Davis' appeals were denied. On October 16, 2023, Mr. Davis filed this
habeas action. On December 21, 2023, the Department modified Mr. Davis'
charge to B-204, sexual contact. Dkt. 9-13. Respondent argues that Mr. Davis
failed to exhaust certain claims, but the Court finds it more efficient to address
the merits of all Mr. Davis' claims.
C. 	Analysis
In support of his petition, Mr. Davis argues: 1) he was denied an impartial
decisionmaker; 2) he was denied 24 hours' notice before his hearing; and 3) the
evidence did not support the conviction. Dkt. 1; dkt. 10.
1. Impartial Decisionmaker
A prisoner in a disciplinary action has the right to be heard before an
impartial decisionmaker before losing earned credit time. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454;
Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 845 (7th Cir. 2011); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674,
677 (7th Cir. 2003). Hearing officers "are entitled to a presumption of honesty
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
and integrity" absent clear evidence to the contrary. Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d
660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003); Perotti v. Marberry, 355 F. App'x 39, 43 (7th Cir. 2009).
Indeed, the "the constitutional standard for impermissible bias is high," and
hearing officers "are not deemed biased simply because they presided over a
prisoner's previous disciplinary proceeding." Piggie, 342 F.3d at 666. 	Instead,
hearing officers are impermissibly biased when, for example, they are "directly
or 	substantially 	involved 	in 	the 	factual 	events 	underlying 	the 	disciplinary
charges, or in the investigation thereof." Id. at 667.
Mr. Davis has not alleged that the DHO was involved in the incident at
issue or its investigation. He argues that the DHO did not really consider Mr.
Davis' grievance, wherein Mr. Davis explains that a PREA officer pressured him
to admit what happened, even though it was a lie. In essence, his argument that
the hearing officer was biased is based on the fact that the hearing officer found
him guilty. This is not enough to demonstrate that he was denied an impartial
decisionmaker.
2. Advanced Notice of Hearing
A prisoner has a right to 24 hours advance notice of the charges against
him "in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the
facts and prepare a defense." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. "The notice should inform
the inmate of the rule allegedly violated and summarize the facts underlying the
charge." Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 910 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Whitford v.
Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 534 (7th Cir. 1995)). "The notice requirement permits the
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
accused to gather the relevant facts and prepare a defense." Northern, 326 F.3d
at 910.
Mr. Davis contends that he was not given 24 hours' notice before the
hearing. In response to a written request, a caseworker told him that the hearing
would be held on August 29, 2023. Dkt. 1-1. His hearing was conducted on
August 24, 2023, and he alleges that he was "unprepared and caught off-guard."
Dkt. 1 at 3.
Mr. Davis was notified of the charge on August 18, six days before the
August 24 hearing. Although it is unfortunate that the caseworker was either
misinformed or the hearing date was changed, these circumstances do not
violate due process. Mr. Davis had ample time to prepare for the hearing.
3. Insufficient Evidence
Mr. Davis' final claim is that there was insufficient evidence to find him
guilty of the charge. In a prison disciplinary proceeding, the "hearing officer's
decision 	need 	only 	rest 	on 	'some 	evidence' 	logically 	supporting 	it 	and
demonstrating that the result is not arbitrary." Ellison, 820 F.3d at 274. The
"some evidence" standard is much more lenient than the "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard. Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002). "[T]he
relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Hill, 472 U.S. at 455–
56 (emphasis added); see also Eichwedel v. Chandler, 696 F.3d 660, 675 (7th
Cir. 2012) ("The some evidence standard . . . is satisfied if there is any evidence
in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the hearing officer.").
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Even though Mr. Davis says that he lied in his written statement admitting
to sexual conduct/contact, the DHO was not required to believe this retraction.
Mr. Davis argues that his single statement should be weighed against the other
three witness statements saying nothing happened. This Court, however, may
not "reweigh the evidence underlying the hearing officer's decision" or "look to
see if other record evidence supports a contrary finding." Rhoiney, 723 F. App'x
at 348 (citing Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000)). Mr. Davis'
written statement was some evidence to support the charge.
D. 	Conclusion
"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. Accordingly, Mr. Davis'
petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied. 	Judgment consistent with
this Order shall now issue.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
BRANT DAVIS
292390
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box E
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Date: 1/9/2026
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Natalie Faye Weiss
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
natalie.weiss@atg.in.gov
Case 1:23-cv-01861-JPH-MKK Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>