IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

REGGIE M. BALENTINE, )

 )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-991

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the habeas petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding,

filed by Reggie M. Balentine, a pro se prisoner, on September 12,

2013 (DE #1). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition (DE

#1) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Balentine brings the current action challenging three prison

disciplinary convictions from three separate prison disciplinary

hearings, all which originate from the same set of facts and

Internal Affairs investigation. In the Miami Correctional

Facility, where Balentine resided at the time, Balentine was found

guilty of three charges: MCF 13-07-0214, possession or use of a

cell phone, Class A offense #121; MCF 13-07-0196, trafficking,
Class A offense #113; and MCF 13-07-0195, engaging in unauthorized

financial transactions, Class B offense #220. Balentine exhausted

his available administrative appeals with regard to the issues

raised in the Petition. (DE #11, Exs.G-O, Q-T, AA-CC.)1 

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

There are three individual conduct reports with different

information for each offense (Exs. A. K, & U). All three charges

arise from one Internal Affairs investigation which was instigated

after a cell phone was found within the Miami Correctional Facility

where Balentine resided. Id. Internal Affairs Investigator

Klepinger wrote all three conduct reports. Id. Balentine was

screened for each case individually, but went through the screening

process for all three cases on July 19, 2013, by the same screening

officer. (Exs. B, L & V.) All three hearings were held on July

26, 2013, by Hearing Officer (H.O.) Sergeant Beemer.

MCF 13-07-0214, possession or use of a cell phone, Class A offense

#121 

Internal Affairs Investigator Klepinger wrote a conduct report

that charged Balentine with class A offense 121, possession or use

of a cell phone. (Ex. A.) The conduct report stated: 

1

 All of the Exhibits referred to in this Order are attached to the

Superintendent’s Return, DE #11.

2
On 4/29/13 Internal Affairs began an investigation

into the above offender for possible possession/use

of a cell phone. A cell phone had been confiscated

from his cell on 4/28/13. Balentine’s cellmate

claimed ownership of the phone, however,

information was received that the phone actually

belonged to Balentine. The phone was removed from

evidence for further investigation. Balentine

denied ownership of the phone however there were email, Facebook, and Twitter accounts located on the

phone that belong to him. There were also photos

and a video of Balentine in his cell that were sent

out from the phone. There were numerous incoming

and outgoing calls found on the call log that were

made to people listed on Balentine’s offender phone

list and/or visit list. 

The investigation determined that the phone did

belong to Balentine. See IA Case #13-MCF-0050[.] 

Id. 

On July 19, 2013, Balentine was notified of the charge when he

was served with the conduct report and the screening report. (Exs.

A-B.) Balentine was notified of his rights, he pled not guilty,

and he requested the appointment of a lay advocate. (Ex. B.) 

Balentine requested one witness statement from Tyron Gibbs and a

review of the evidence and “[f]ingerprint the phone.” Id. Hearing

Officer, Sergeant Beemer, wrote a summary of the evidence contained

in the Internal Affairs file stating: 

On the date of (sic) 07/22/2013[,] [t]he evidence

in the case of offender Balentine, Reggie

D[OC]#971707 is being reviewed this is the summary

of requested evidence to be viewed. 

On the [p]hone: 

There are pictures of offender Balentine in his 

cell on the phone[.] 

There is a video of offender Balentine (sexual in

nature) on his bunk sent to a [ ]. 

3
G-mail account/address [] on the phone along with a

twitter account with twitter messages from offender

Balentine’s brother []. 

Cell phone reports show text messages and cell

phone calls to/from multiple visitors on offender

Balentine’s phone list. 

Subpoena reports from green dot numbers[.] 

Green dot holders name’s (sic) on offender

Balentine’s phone list[.] 

Report of a 3 way call made by offender

Balentine[.] 

Offender Balentine requested the evidence in his

case be reviewed due to safety and security reasons

this offender cannot see the video, photos, or case

files; offender will receive a copy of this summary

of evidence[.] 

(Ex. C, italics in original.) Offender Gibbs’ witness statement

was, “Mr[.] Balentine did not own or [p]oss[ess] the cell phone the

cell phone did [b]elong to me[.]” (Ex. D.) 

On July 26, 2013, the H.O. conducted the prison disciplinary

hearing and found Balentine guilty of Class A offense 121,

possession or use of a cell phone. (Ex. F.) The sanctions

recommended and approved were an earned credit time loss of 150

days, a credit class demotion from credit class I to II, 120 days

in disciplinary segregation, a 45 day loss of telephone and

commissary privileges and a written reprimand. Id. These

sanctions were imposed because of the seriousness of the offense,

the offender’s attitude and demeanor during the hearing and the

likelihood the sanctions would have a corrective effect on the

offender’s future behavior. Id. In making this determination, the

H.O. relied on the staff reports, the witness statement, the

4
summary of evidence and Balentine’s statement at the hearing,

“[t]he phone does not belong to me. I can’t deny I used the phone. 

I think it should stay the B207. That’s what I was put in SCU

for.” Id. The Petitioner appealed unsuccessfully. (Exs. G-I.) 

MCF 13-07-0196, trafficking, Class A offense #113 

Internal Affairs Investigator Klepinger wrote a second conduct

report that charged Balentine with class A offense 113,

trafficking. (Ex. K.) The conduct report stated:

On 4/29/13 Internal Affairs began an investigation

into the above offender for possible

possession/use of a cell phone. A cell phone

had been confiscated from his cell on 4/28/13.

Balentine’s cellmate claimed ownership of the

phone, however, information was received that

the phone actually belonged to Balentine. The

phone was removed from evidence for further

investigation. While reviewing the contents

of the phone numerous text message

conversations were found that had several

series of numbers, appearing to be Money Pak

numbers for Green Dot cards, in them along

with amounts of money that each number should

be for. There was conversation about

“loading” the numbers, which means to upload

the money onto a permenant [sic.] card. The

phone was sent to the State Police lab for a

full report and case was opened for possible

trafficking. Once the report was returned

there was a substantial amount of information

to indicate trafficking. There were text

messages with Money Pak numbers, conversations

discussing when/where contraband could be

exchanged, amounts of money contraband costs, 

money transactions to a former Aramark worker,

and several other indicators. Balentine

denied ownership of the phone however there

were e-mail, Facebook, and Twitter accounts

located on the phone that belong to him. 

5
There were also photos and a video of

Balentine in his cell that were sent out from

the phone. Information gathered during the

investigation substantiates that Balentine was

involved in Trafficking at MCF. Information

was also discovered that Balentine had a staff

contact that was bringing the contraband into

the facility to him. Subpoenas were issued

for further infromation [sic.] on who the

Green Dot Card account holder were that the

Money Pak numbers were loaded onto. This

information provided further evidence that

Balentine was engaged in Trafficking.

Id. 

On July 19, 2013, Balentine was notified of the charge when he

was served with the conduct report and the screening report. (Exs.

K-L.) Balentine was notified of his rights, he pled not guilty and

he requested the appointment of a lay advocate. (Ex. L.) 

Balentine requested one witness statement from Tyron Gibbs and a

review of the evidence and “Green Dot Confirmation.” Id. Hearing

Officer, Sergeant Beemer, wrote a summary of the evidence contained

in the Internal Affairs file and the summary is the same for all

three cases as stated supra. (Ex. M.) Offender Gibbs’ witness

statement said, “I never see [sic.] or knew anything about Mr.

Balentine Trafficing [sic.] at all the only thing he ever did is

play cards and eat.” (Ex. N.) 

On July 26, 2013, the H.O. conducted the prison disciplinary

hearing and found Balentine guilty of Class A offense 113,

trafficking. (Ex. P.) The sanctions recommended and approved were

an earned credit time loss of 120 days, a credit class demotion

6
from credit class II to III, 120 days in disciplinary segregation,

a 45 day loss of telephone and commissary privileges and a written

reprimand. Id. These sanctions were imposed because of the

seriousness of the offense, the offender’s attitude and demeanor

during the hearing and the likelihood the sanctions would have a

corrective effect on the offender’s future behavior. Id. In

making this determination, the H.O. relied on the staff reports,

the witness statement, the summary of evidence and Balentine’s

statement at the hearing that “I have never traffic [sic.] anything

they have never found anything on me. That was Gibbs phone not me. 

There was no greendots [sic.] either.” Id. The Petitioner

appealed unsuccessfully. (Exs. Q-T.) 

MCF 13-07-0195, engaging in unauthorized financial transactions,

Class B offense #220 

Internal Affairs Investigator Klepinger wrote a third conduct

report that charged Balentine with class B offense 220, engaging in

unauthorized financial transactions. (Ex. U.) The conduct report

stated: 

On 4/29/13 Internal Affairs began an investigation

into the above offender for possible possession/use

of a cell phone. A cell phone had been confiscated

from his cell on 4/28/13. Balentine’s cellmate

claimed ownership of the phone, however,

information was received that the phone actually

belonged to Balentine. The phone was removed from

evidence for further investigation. While

reviewing the contents of the phone numerous text

message conversations were found that had several

series of numbers, appearing to be Money Pak

numbers for Green Dot cards, in them along with

7
amounts of money that each number should be for. 

There was conversation about “loading” the numbers,

which means to upload the money onto a permenant

[sic.] card. The phone was sent to the State

Police lab for a full report. 

Once the phone report was returned a list of the

potential Money Pak numbers was sent to Green Dot

for confirmation. All numbers were confirmed by

Green Dot and amounts of money loaded onto them was

also provided. It is against MCF policy for these

transactions to take place amongst offenders. 

Id. 

On July 19, 2013, Balentine was notified of the charge when he

was served with the conduct report and the screening report. (Exs.

U-V.) Balentine was notified of his rights, he pled not guilty and

he requested the appointment of a lay advocate. (Ex. V.) 

Balentine requested one witness statement from Tyron Gibbs and a

review of the evidence and “Green Dot Confirmation.” Id. Hearing

Officer, Sergeant Beemer, wrote a summary of the evidence contained

in the Internal Affairs file and the summary for all three cases

was the same as stated supra. (Ex. W.) Offender Gibbs’ witness

statement was “I never seen him with any Green dot # or have

anything to do with them.” (Ex. X.)

On July 26, 2013, the H.O. conducted the prison disciplinary

hearing and found Balentine guilty of Class B offense 220, engaging

in unauthorized financial transactions. (Ex. Z.) The sanctions

recommended and approved were an earned credit time loss of 30

days, 30 days in disciplinary segregation, a 30 day loss of

8
telephone and commissary privileges and a written reprimand. Id. 

These sanctions were imposed because of the seriousness of the

offense, the offender’s attitude and demeanor during the hearing

and the likelihood the sanctions would have a corrective effect on

the offender’s future behavior. Id. In making this determination,

the H.O. relied on the staff reports, the witness statement, the

summary of evidence and Balentine’s statement at the hearing

“[g]reen dots were not in my name. I didn’t do anything with green

dots.” Id. The Petitioner appealed unsuccessfully. (Ex. AA-CC.) 

The present action ensued.

DISCUSSION

When a due process liberty interest is at stake in prison

disciplinary hearings, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees

prisoners certain procedural due process protections: (1) advance

written notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to be heard

before an impartial decision-maker; (3) an opportunity to call

witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense when

consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals; and

(4) a written statement by the fact-finder of evidence relied on

and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539 (1974). To satisfy due process, there must also be

“some evidence” in the record to support the disciplinary decision. 

Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455

9
(1985). 

Balentine states four grounds for relief in his petition, but

they can be boiled down to two main claims. The first is there was

insufficient evidence to support the charge of trafficking and that

he owned the phone. (DE #1, p. 4-5.) In assessing the sufficiency

of the evidence, the relevant standard is whether there is “some

evidence” to support the guilty finding. Hill, 472 U.S. at 457.

The court will not “conduct an examination of the entire record,

independently assess witness credibility, or weigh the evidence,

but only determine whether the prison disciplinary board’s decision

to revoke good time credits has some factual basis.” McPherson v.

McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). A guilty finding will

be overturned only if “no reasonable adjudicator could have found

[the prisoner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence

presented.” Henderson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073,

1077 (7th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, a hearing officer is permitted

to rely on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. See Hamilton

v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1992).

In this case, regarding the claim under case number MCF 13-07-

0214, for unauthorized use of a cell phone, the H.O. reviewed the

evidence in the case and found when the cell phone was examined,

Balentine’s e-mail, Facebook, and twitter accounts were found on

the phone. (Exs. A, C & F.) Additionally, there were photos and

an explicit video of Balentine on his bunk that were found to have

10
been sent out from the phone. Id. There were also ingoing and

outgoing calls found on the call log made to people listed on

Balentine’s offender phone list and/or visit list. (Ex. A.) 

Moreover, Balentine admitted to using the cell phone during the

hearing, stating, “I can’t deny I used the cell phone,” and merely

argued he should have been found guilty of a lesser B offense

instead of the A 121 offense. (Ex. F.) As such, there was

sufficient evidence to find Balentine guilty of using the cell

phone in an unauthorized manner. Even if the phone belonged to his

cellmate, as Balentine claims, Balentine was found guilty for

unauthorized use or possession of a cell phone, not owning one.

Regarding the claim under case number MCF 13-07-0196, for the

Class A offense of trafficking, there was also substantial evidence

to support the charge. There were “text messages with Money Pak

numbers, conversations discussing when/where contraband could be

exchanged, amounts of money contraband costs, money transactions to

a former Aramark worker, and several other indicators.” (Ex. K.) 

“Information was also discovered that Balentine had a staff contact

that was bringing the contraband into the facility to him.” Id.

Finally, after the subpoenas were issued, investigators discovered

“who the Green Dot Card account holders were” and how much money

had been “loaded onto” each Money Pak number. Id. 

Lastly, regarding the claim under case number MCF 13-07-0195,

engaging in unauthorized financial transactions, again, there was

11
sufficient evidence to find Balentine guilty. The same evidence

goes to support this charge. Additionally, after an examination by

the Indiana State Police Lab, there were multiple text

conversations which included series of numbers that appeared to be

Green Dot cards and information about what monetary amounts should

be placed on which card. (Ex. U.) There were also discussions

about “loading” money onto the cards and “[a]ll numbers were

confirmed by Green Dot and amounts of money loaded onto them was

also provided.” Id. It is against MCF policy for these

transactions to take place among offenders. Id. 

The statement made by Balentine’s cellmate, Gibbs, that the

phone belonged to him, does not help Balentine. Circumstantial

evidence is sufficient to support a guilty finding in a

disciplinary proceeding. See Hamilton, 976 F.2d at 345-46. The

record need not contain evidence of actual possession of

contraband, as long as there is sufficient evidence of constructive

possession. Id. (evidence of possession was sufficient in

disciplinary case, since contraband was found in a location where

only the petitioner and three other cellmates could have left it);

see also Pigg v. Finnan, 289 Fed. Appx. 945, 947 (7th Cir. Aug. 18,

2008) (“When only a few inmates have access to the place contraband

is found, constructive possession is ‘some evidence’ sufficient to

sustain a disciplinary conviction.”). There is sufficient

circumstantial evidence of Balentine’s possession of the phone in

12
this case. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 457 (“Although the evidence in

this case might be characterized as meager, and there was no direct

evidence identifying any one of three inmates as the assailant, the

record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the

disciplinary board were without support or otherwise arbitrary.”). 

Balentine’s second claim is that the charges are

“duplicative,” or that they were “stacked.” (DE #1, pp. 4-5.) The

collateral review envisioned by § 2254 focuses on violations of the

Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. See Bell v.

Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1988). Yet this claim is based

upon the rules and procedures of the Indiana Department of

Correction. The DOC policies and procedures are created under the

authority of state law, and violations of state law do not entitle

prisoners to habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 

(1991). Moreover, violations of the ADP do not state a claim for

federal habeas relief. Hester, 966 F.Supp. at 774-75. Therefore,

to the extent Petitioner relies on violations of the ADP or other

DOC policies as grounds for his Petition, relief is not proper. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the petition (DE #1) is DENIED.

DATED: July 7, 2014 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

 United States District Court

13