MITCHELL v. WARDEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
LAKESHA MITCHELL, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK
)
WARDEN, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Lakesha Mitchell's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks relief from
her conviction and sanctions in prison disciplinary case MCU 23-10-0662. For
the following reasons, her petition is denied.
I. 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.
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 563-67 (1974).
II. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On October 26, 2023, Correctional Officer Jordan Brown wrote a conduct
report that charged Ms. Mitchell with offense A-113, trafficking. Dkt. 20-1. The
report states:
On 10/26/2023 at approximately 1530 hours I Correctional Officer
Jordan Brown was walking from Blank Center to Blank South
Lowers 	North 	Foyer 	when 	I 	witnessed 	Incarcerated 	Individual
Mitchell, Lakesha DOC#237289 pass off a green item to Jennings,
Nikaria 	DOC#294192. 	Upon 	searching 	the 	item 	Incarcerated
Individual Mitchell passed off I found a green sweater that concealed
two tampon sized rolls of a brown leafy substance wrapped in clear
plastic and black tape.
Per Adult Disciplinary Process Appendix I: Offenses, Trafficking A
113 Giving, selling, trading, transferring or in any other manner
moving 	an 	unauthorized 	physical 	object 	to 	another 	person; 	or
receiving, buying, trading, or transferring; or in another manner
moving 	an 	unauthorized 	physical 	object 	from 	another 	person
without the prior authorization of the facility warden or designee or
possessing an amount of contraband/prohibited property where
intent to transfer may be inferred. Incarcerated Individual Mitchel
knowingly 	passed 	off 	contraband 	to 	Incarcerated 	Individual
Jennings.
Id. (paragraph break added).
When notified of her rights and given a copy of the conduct report and
screening report, Ms. Mitchell pleaded not guilty. Dkt. 20-2. She requested
offender Nikaria Jennings as a witness and as physical evidence requested
camera footage from 1520 to 1550 of Blank South Lower foyer/stairwell and
South Lower hall. Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Offender Jennings' written statement said: "Lekesha Mitchell handed me
a green sweatshirt no it did not have anything in it She had no knowledge of the
tabacco I was caught with." 	Dkt. 20-4 (original errors).
Disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) Cosby reviewed the requested video and
provided the following summary:
Conducted review for 10/26/2023 for 1520-1550:
03:20:28 – Mitchell enters the foyer from the center foyer with two other
individuals.
03:21:17 – Mitchell is walking up the stairs carrying a green clothing
item in her hand.
03:21:23 – Mitchell enters the Blank South upper.
03:28:10 – Mitchell goes down the stairs holding the green clothing item
and is in the foyer standing towards BSL hallway.
03:28:16 – On the other side of the door Jennings walks up to the door
03:28:30 – Jennings steps into the foyer where Mitchell is at.
03:28:43 – Ofc. Brown enters the foyer from the center area.
03:28:45 – Jennings is seen walking away from the foyer area holding the
green clothing item. 03:29:06 – Ofc. Brown stops Jennings and walks to
a room and leaves with the green cloth item. 03:29:06 – Mitchell remains
in the foyer.
03:29:31 – Mitchell opens the door to the hallway and stands in the
doorway.
03:31:15 – Mitchell begins to walk up the stairs, and Sgt. Love enters the
foyer and enters the hallway of Blank south tower.
03:31:24 – Mitchell enters BSU and is no longer holding the green
clothing item.
03:32:06 – Ofc. Brown enters his office holding the green clothing item
and Sgt. Love enters behind him.
03:36:02 – Ofc. Young comes on to the unit and enters the office.
03:37:34 – Mitchell comes down the stairs again and now holding a black
cloth item.
03:37:55 – She hands the black item to another incarcerated individual.
03:38:27 – The other individual enters the hallway of blank holding the
black item in her hand. 03:38:34 – Another individual comes into the
foyer holding a tablet and begins speaking with Mitchell.
03:38:52 – Sgt. Love enters the foyer and begins to speak with Mitchell.
03:39:36 – Mitchell and Sgt. Love begin to walk upstairs to BSU.
03:39:45 – They both enter BSU. - nothing further to report/End of
review.
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Dkt. 20-6.
At the hearing, Ms. Mitchell provided the following statement:
I asked for the camera footage to show that I came and brought her
the green sweat shirt and it was not even for Nikaria it was for
someone else. I gave the sweat shirt to Nikaria. That was when
Brown came through and followed Nikaria to the room. Ember asked
if I had a pair of black shorts in the foyer, I went back up and
grabbed the shorts and came back down with them. Sgt. Love came
to me and had me go upstairs and conducted a strip search. I am
not an outside crew. Trafficking is not fair, this should not be a class
A because I was never in possession of tobacco. Nikaria admits to
having it and even states that I had no knowledge of tobacco. Ofc.
Brown should have stopped and grabbed the sweat shirt when he
walked through if he was suspicious of it. Instead he waited and
took the item in Nikaria's room.
Dkt. 20-5 (original errors).
The 	DHO 	found 	Ms. 	Mitchell 	guilty 	of 	A-113, 	trafficking, 	after
considering 	the 	witness 	statement 	from 	Ms. 	Nikaria, 	Ms. 	Mitchell's
statement, and the conduct report. Id. The DHO reasoned:
The report of conduct written by Ofc. Brown states that he witnessed
Mitchell 	pass 	off 	a 	green 	item 	to 	Jennings. 	Mitchell 	had 	no
authorization from the Warden or Designee to give, transfer an item
to another incarcerated individual. The item was confiscated from
the individual that Mitchell passed the item to and the item was
searched and contraband was found.
Id.
The DHO sanctioned Ms. Mitchell with a 90-day loss of good time credit.
Id. Ms. Mitchell's appeals were denied. This habeas action followed.
III. Discussion
Ms. Mitchell asserts three grounds in her petition: 1) the sanctions violated
the equal protection clause; 2) there was insufficient evidence; and 3) another
inmate claimed ownership of the contraband. Dkt. 1 at 2–3.
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
A. Equal Protection
Ms. Mitchell first asserts that another offender, Susan Johnson, was found
guilty of trafficking tobacco and was only convicted of a class C offense. On this
basis, she argues that her equal protection rights were violated when she was
sanctioned with a class A offense.
The Equal Protection clause directs that "all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432,
439 	(1985). "[T]he 	Equal 	Protection 	Clause 	protects 	against 	intentional
discrimination on the basis of race or national origin…." De Lima Silva v. Dept.
of Corrections, 917 F.3d 546, 559 (7th Cir. 2019); see also Lauderdale v. Ill. Dept.
of Human Services, 876 F.3d 904, 909-10 (7th Cir. 2017) ("The equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against intentional,
arbitrary discrimination by government officials.") (internal quotation omitted).
Ms. Mitchell alleges she was judged more harshly than another inmate. She has
presented no evidence, however, that the different offenses and sanctions were
the result of intentional discrimination based on a protected class, rather than
other factors. This claim therefore does not entitle her to relief.
B. 	Some Evidence
Ms. 	Mitchell 	next 	argues 	that 	there 	is 	no 	evidence 	supporting 	the
conclusion that the green sweater had tobacco in it when she possessed it.
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
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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) (same).
Once 	the 	Court 	finds 	"some 	evidence" 	supporting 	the 	disciplinary
conviction, the inquiry ends. Id. This Court 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)).
It is undisputed that the tobacco was discovered in the green sweatshirt
that Ms. Mitchell passed to Ms. Jennings. In this case, the conduct report
provided "some" evidence allowing a reasonable inference that there was tobacco
in the sweatshirt when it was possessed by Ms. Mitchell. As noted, the Court
cannot give more weight to Ms. Jennings' statement than to any other evidence.
There was no due process error in this regard.
C. 	Exculpatory Evidence
For 	her 	final 	claim, 	Ms. 	Mitchell 	argues 	that 	because 	Ms. 	Jennings
admitted to possessing the tobacco, the charge against Ms. Mitchell should be
vacated. This claim is essentially the same as the challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence. Although there was some exculpatory evidence provided by Ms.
Jennings admitting that the tobacco was hers, that does not require the DHO or
the Court to conclude that Ms. Mitchell did not pass the sweatshirt with the
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
tobacco in it to Ms. Jennings. The DHO explained the reasoning for how she
weighed the evidence. The DHO did not have to credit Ms. Jennings' statement.
There is some evidence that supports the conclusion that Ms. Mitchell trafficked
the 	contraband, 	and 	the 	Court 	cannot 	reweigh 	the 	evidence 	presented.
Therefore, this claim does not entitle her to relief.
IV. 	Conclusion
"The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against
arbitrary action of 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, and there was no constitutional
infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Ms. Mitchell to the relief she seeks.
Accordingly, Ms. Mitchell's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
LAKESHA MITCHELL
237289
ROCKVILLE - CF
ROCKVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
811 West 50 North
Rockville, IN 47872
Benjamin Myron Lane Jones
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ben.jones@atg.in.gov
Date: 12/16/2025
Case 2:24-cv-00035-JPH-MKK Document 31 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>