UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-166-PPS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Roosevelt Williams was a prisoner at the Westville Correctional Facility when he

was found guilty in WCU 12-01-493 of Possessing an Electronic Device in violation of

prison rule B-207. As a result, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer docked him 60 days of

credit time that he had previously earned. The Conduct Report informed Williams that,

“On above date (1-20-12) at approx. 6 pm I was going through Offender Williams (974618)

photo albums when I found two micro SD cards in Polaroid pictures. I confiscated the

property and turned it into IA [Internal Affairs].” DE 11-1 at 1. So the SD cards were the

contraband that got Williams into hot water. An SD card is a “secure digital” card that is

an ultra small memory card designed to provide electronic memory in small sizes such as

those used in digital cameras.

See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SD_Card.html (Last visited October 5, 2015).

Williams has always denied that the micro SD cards were his. What is odd about this

case is that there is no indication that the hearing officer looked at the images on the SD

card which presumably he could have readily done. This would have established what
images were on the card to help ascertain which offender it belonged to. What’s more,

Williams argued that he could prove that the SD cards were not his because the picture

album they were found in did not belong to him either. Evidently, they were photos of

someone else’s family. Williams says that his belongings and the belongings of two other

inmates were somehow commingled when they were all searched together as a part of their

transfer out the Indiana State Prison. 

When Williams was screened on this charge, he requested “Pictures from IA” as

physical evidence to prove that he was not guilty. DE 11-3 at 1. The pictures he was

requesting were the Polaroid pictures in which the micro SD cards were found. Based on

the Conduct Report, quoted above, it appeared as if pictures were part of the confiscated

property that was sent to Internal Affairs. Williams “requested the pictures from I.A. to

prove that those micro SD cards was not located in his photo albums, thus Mr. Williams

family and friends would not have been found in those pictures thus proving Williams

claims.” DE 1 at 6-7. 

As it turned out, the evidence only included the SD cards and not the photos or

photo album that the SD cards were found near. DE 11-2. It appears that neither the photo

albums nor the Polaroid pictures were confiscated. Williams was unaware of this.

Nevertheless, an inmate has the right to present relevant exculpatory evidence. Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Here, the requested Polaroid photos were relevant and

potentially exculpatory. Though he wrote that he wanted the photos from Internal Affairs,

what he really wanted, really needed, and was really asking for were the Polaroid photos.

2
His mention of Internal Affairs was not a limitation on his request, it was merely an

indication of where he reasonably believed the Polaroid photos to be located. It did not

matter whether Internal Affairs had them or not. He had the right to request that the

hearing officer obtain and consider relevant exculpatory evidence. He made the request,

but the photos were neither sought nor reviewed. That was a due process violation.

Because he was denied due process, habeas corpus will be granted on this ground. 

Williams also raises two other grounds, but neither are additional reasons for

granting habeas corpus. He argues that the hearing officer was biased because the hearing

was not recorded. “[T]he constitutional standard for impermissible bias is high,” Piggie v.

Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003), and an adjudicator is entitled to a presumption of

“honesty and integrity” absent clear evidence to the contrary. See id. Prison disciplinary

hearings are not formal and they are not recorded or transcribed. Records of their

proceedings are very limited. Due process does not require that testimony be recorded the

way it is in a criminal trial. It merely requires that the fact finder provide a written

explanation of its findings. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. Thus the lack of a recording is not proof

of bias. Though Williams argues (in Ground Three) that he was denied a written

explanation, that requirement is “not onerous” and to satisfy due process “[t]he statement

need only illuminate the evidentiary basis and reasoning behind the decision.” Scruggs v.

Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the Disciplinary Hearing Report adequately

explains that the reason for finding him guilty was “C/R [conduct report] & photocopies

3
of evidence support a Class B 207 guilty decision as well as the admission of having a

phone.”

For these reasons, Williams’ petition for writ of habeas corpus [DE 1] is GRANTED.

The Respondent is ORDERED to file documentation by November 19, 2015, showing that

the guilty finding in WCU 12-01-493 has been VACATED and Roosevelt Williams’ earned

credit time restored. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 5, 2015.

s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4