BENSON v. ALLEN

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CHARLES A. BENSON, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-01373-SEB-TAB
)
TRENT ALLEN, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Charles A. Benson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges his disciplinary
conviction in Indiana Department of Correction disciplinary case number ISR-24-04-000960. He
has filed a motion for leave of Court and permission to engage in written discovery, dkt. 14, and a
motion requesting this Court for permission to expand the record. Dkt. 13. For the reasons set forth
below, both motions are denied.
I. Motion for Leave of Court and Permission to Engage in Written Discovery
Under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, the Court "may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery[.]" For the Court
to grant leave for discovery, Petitioner "must provide reasons for the request. The request must
also include any proposed interrogatories and requests for admission, and must specify and
requested documents." 28 U.S.C. § 2254, R. Governing § 2254 Cases 6(b). To be entitled to
discovery, Petitioner must make specific factual allegations that demonstrate that there is good
reason to believe that he may, through discovery, be able to garner sufficient evidence to entitle
him to relief. Bracey v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997).
Case 1:24-cv-01373-SEB-TAB Document 16 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Petitioner submits no allegations that the discovery he seeks would garner sufficient
evidence to entitle him to relief. He moves to: (1) propound interrogatories—not included with the
motion—on Respondent and a non-party witness; and (2) review a video of when a paper was
provided to him for signature. Dkt. 14. First, such a motion "must . . . include any proposed
interrogatories[,]" 28 U.S.C. § 2254, R. Governing § 2254 Cases 6(b), and Petitioner fails to do
so. As to interrogatories, the motion must be denied.
Second, Petitioner asserts that the video he seeks will "support his claim of [a disciplinary
hearing officer] walking off within 10-15 seconds after handing [him] the paper to sign." Dkt. 13
at 2. The Court interprets "the paper" to be the subject disciplinary hearing report. See dkt. 1 at 3
(4). However, this would not be sufficient evidence to entitle him to relief. Petitioner does not aver
in his petition or reply that the hearing officer left his cell within ten to fifteen seconds after handing
him the reports. See dkts. 1, 11. Petitioner does allege that the report on the record, dkt. 10-4, is
not the report he received and signed, but his motion does not imply the video would resolve this
fact dispute. The time after which the hearing officer left alone does not implicate Petitioner's due
process rights, and the Court finds no good cause to authorize Petitioner to conduct discovery of
the video. Petitioner's motion for leave of Court and permission to engage in written discovery,
dkt. 14, is denied.
II. Motion Requesting this Court for Permission to Expand the Record
Under Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, the Court "may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials
relating to the petition." Petitioner moves the Court to direct Respondent to expand the record by
submitting: (1) video footage which shows Petitioner timely requested the Warden to preserve the
aforementioned video of the hearing officer leaving his cell after handing him the report; (2) a
Case 1:24-cv-01373-SEB-TAB Document 16 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
complaint Petitioner submitted after the event which lead to his disciplinary conviction; and (3)
any reports related to said complaint. Dkt. 13 at 2. "The purpose [of Rule 7] is to enable the [Court]
to dispose of some habeas petitions not dismissed on the pleadings, without the time and expense
required for an evidentiary hearing." Advisory Committee note to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, R. Governing
§ 2254 Cases 7. The purpose of the rule is, in short, to eliminate some unnecessary evidentiary
hearings. See id.; Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 81-82 (1977). The materials which Petitioner
seeks to be added to the record do not impact the viability of his petition or resolve whether due
process violations occurred at his disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for
permission to expand the record, dkt. 13, is denied.
Petitioner's motions for leave of Court and permission to engage in written discovery, dkt.
[14], and requesting this Court for permission to expand the record, dkt. [13], are denied. The
habeas corpus petition will be ruled on in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: ______________________
Distribution:
CHARLES A. BENSON
202702
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
David A. Arthur
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
12/18/2025
Case 1:24-cv-01373-SEB-TAB Document 16 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>