UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

STEPHEN T. PEROSKY, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) No. 3:15 CV 105 JM

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Stephen T. Perosky, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition

challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 14-10-1) in which a Westville

Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of

possession of unauthorized personal information in violation of prison rule B-247 on

October 14, 2014. As a result, the DHO deprived Perosky of 30 days earned credit time.

Perosky raises three grounds in his petition, but since there is not sufficient evidence to

support having found him guilty, it is only necessary to address that ground. 

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Perosky had his girlfriend’s social

security number. He wrote it on a note which he sent to another inmate in the law

library. (DE # 14-1; DE # 15-1 at 2.) He was charged with “possession/solicitation

unauthorized personal information.” (DE # 14-1.) He does not dispute that he had her

social security number and it is beyond question that a social security number is

personal information. The issue here is whether he was authorized to have it. 

The hearing was originally scheduled to be held on October 8, 2014, but it was

postponed “for information/fax.” (DE # 14-5.) In the Disciplinary Hearing Report, the
DHO wrote that a “fax with notary” was physical evidence which was presented 

during the hearing. (DE # 14-6.) The DHO also wrote that “fax with notary” was a basis

for the decision. Id. However, the Respondent did not provide a copy of that fax even

though ordered to provide “the complete administrative record.” (DE # 10.)

Nevertheless, Perosky did submit it and the Respondent has neither objected nor

disputed its authenticity. The fax is a notarized statement from Perosky’s girlfriend. She

writes: “To whom it may concern; I gave Stephen T. Perosky & Norman Clark

permission to use my social security number for files for Stephen’s Post Conviction . . .

We have dated for five years.” (DE # 16-1 at 2.) Despite this fax, the response Perosky’s

administrative appeal stated: “The conduct report is clear that you had possession of

unauthorized personal information. There is no documented evidence indicating you

had prior authorization.” (DE # 14-8 at 1.) 

The Respondent argues:

[In Perosky’s] note to the library clerk he provided his girlfriend’s social

security number and then specifically asked him to pull her records and

court cases. [Citation omitted.] His request was not related to his case or

his post-conviction proceeding. This evidence supporting the decision was

sufficient to satisfy the “some evidence” standard to establish that his

possession of the personal information was unauthorized.

(DE # 14 at 7-8.) However, he was not charged with unauthorized use, he was charged

with unauthorized possession. Though a DHO is not required to believe every

undisputed statement submitted during a hearing, 

the findings of a prison disciplinary board [must] have the support of

some evidence in the record. This is a lenient standard, requiring no more

than a modicum of evidence. Even meager proof will suffice, so long as

2
the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary

board were without support or otherwise arbitrary. Although some

evidence is not much, it still must point to the accused’s guilt. 

Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks, citations, 

parentheses, and ellipsis omitted). A DHO can make reasonable inferences based on the

facts presented, but here, the Respondent has simply not pointed to any evidence in the

record from which it could be plausibly inferred that Perosky was not authorized to

have his girlfriend’s social security number. 

In addition, to the extent that the Respondent might be arguing that using the

social security number to request his girlfriend’s court records is sufficient to sustain the

solicitation of personal information prong of the charge—but any such argument is

difficult to discern—court records are public, not personal, information. Moreover, the

conduct report against Perosky states that he was “not authorized to give personal

information,” (DE # 14-1 at 1), and giving information is the opposite of soliciting

information.

It is understandable why finding a social security number of another person in

an inmate’s possession would prompt an investigation. Based on the evidence of record

here, however, it is not understandable why the results of this investigation resulted in

Perosky having been found guilty of unauthorized possession. 

For these reasons, the Amended Habeas Corpus petition (DE # 4) is GRANTED.

The Respondent is ORDERED to file documentation by May 26, 2016, showing that the

3
guilty finding in WCC 14-10-1 has been vacated and Stephen T. Perosky’s earned credit

time restored.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 14, 2016

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT