Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03232/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 18, 2016*

Decided March 22, 2016 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-3232 

SANTONIO HOUSE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

CHARLES A. DANIELS, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 

Terre Haute Division. 

No. 2:15-cv-00143-WTL-DKL 

William T. Lawrence, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

During a search of a cell that Santonio House had shared for more than a month 

with six other federal inmates, a guard found more than three gallons of wine hidden in 

a light fixture and a seven-inch shiv behind the sink. House and, it appears, all of his 

cellmates were charged with possession of a weapon and possession of intoxicants. At a 

disciplinary hearing the evidence consisted of the guard’s incident report; a 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral 

argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 15-3232 Document: 15 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-3232 Page 2 

memorandum written by another staff member attributing direct responsibility for the 

contraband to two of House’s cellmates; photographs of the wine, the shiv, and the light 

fixture; chemical tests of the wine; House’s statement denying knowledge of the 

contraband; the statements of his cellmates, all denying ownership of the contraband; 

and the statement of one cellmate that “everybody knew there was wine in the room.” 

House was found guilty and lost 82 days of good time. After exhausting his 

administrative appeals, House petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 

arguing that the evidence is too thin to satisfy due process. The district court denied the 

petition, and House now appeals. We affirm the judgment. 

House contends that the district court wrongly concluded that “some evidence” 

satisfying due process underlies the loss of good time, since he was not connected 

directly with either the wine or the weapon. But “some evidence” is a lenient standard 

that is met if any evidence supports a disciplinary board's conclusion. Superintendent, 

Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455–56 (1985); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 

(7th Cir. 2000). Even “meager” proof is enough. Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. 

One of House’s cellmates had reported that all of them knew about the wine. And 

as the hearing officer reasoned, the possibility that anyone sharing the room had 

overlooked several gallons of alcohol being accessed from a common light fixture is 

remote. All the occupants had a duty under prison rules to keep their cell free of 

contraband, see Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5270.09 Appendix C (2012), so the 

inference of knowledge also makes House complicit in the possession of the alcohol. His 

connection to the shiv is a closer question, but given the significant amount of alcohol 

that went unreported, knowledge of the weapon also may reasonably be inferred. 

See Hamilton v. O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 345–46 (7th Cir. 1992) (concluding that discovery of 

weapons in 4-man cell was “some evidence” justifying punishing petitioner, one of the 

occupants); Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977, 978, 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that 

discovery of weapons in common area of 8-man dorm constituted “some evidence” for 

punishment of two occupants). 

 House contends, however, that “hundreds of other inmates” also had access to his 

cell at times, and that the odds that the contraband was his is therefore too slim to 

conclude that its discovery constitutes “some evidence.” See Austin v. Pazera, 779 F.3d 

437, 439 (7th Cir. 2015) (concluding that “some evidence” standard was not met where 

contraband was found in workspace that at least five inmates could access); Hamilton, 

976 F.2d at 345 (noting that inference of possession may be too weak to satisfy “some 

evidence” standard if access to location is shared by large number of inmates). But like 

Case: 15-3232 Document: 15 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-3232 Page 3 

the inmate in Hamilton, House failed to make this argument to the hearing officer, who 

instead learned from the incident report that only House and six other inmates, not 

hundreds, shared access to the cell. See Hamilton, 976 F.2d at 346. In any event, the 

hearing officer’s conclusion does not rest on shared access alone but also is supported by 

the cellmate’s statement and the implausibility that a large amount of alcohol can be 

hidden successfully in a ceiling light without the cooperation of every occupant. This is 

not a case of arbitrarily punishing one among many who had access to a public space; 

rather, “squeezed” together as House and his cellmates were, it is “beyond unlikely” 

that any of them did not know about the wine and shiv. See Austin, 779 F.3d at 439. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-3232 Document: 15 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pages: 3