UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

THOMAS OWENS, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) No. 1:14 CV 116

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Thomas Owens, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition challenging

the prison disciplinary hearing (MCF 13-12-173) held at the Miami Correctional Facility

on December 20, 2013. The Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found Owens guilty of

Attempted Trafficking in violation of A-111/113, sanctioned him with the loss of 120

days earned credit time and demoted him to Credit Class 2. Owens raises four grounds

in his petition.

First, he argues that he was denied the right to submit evidence because he was

not given a transcript of phone conversations and kiosk requests. However, he did not

ask for any telephone transcripts or kiosk requests when he was given notice of the

charges against him. (See DE #1 at 30.) Rather, he merely asked that “phone calls be

listened to.”(Id.) The DHB did listen to the phone calls. (See DE #1 at 22 and 29.) Thus,

though Owens did not hear the telephone calls, he was not denied the right to submit

evidence to the DHB for its consideration. “[P]rison disciplinary boards are entitled to
receive, and act on, information that is withheld from the prisoner and the public . . ..”

White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 767 (7th Cir. 2001).

Second, he argues that it was a violation of due process to find him guilty based

on the reporting officer’s opinion. In his third ground, he rephrases his second claim by

arguing that the conduct report is speculative. Specifically, Owens is objecting to the

reporting officer’s statement: “It is this Investigators [sic] opinion that 27 suboxone, at a

value of $75 a piece [sic] wouldn’t have been sent to Hill without his knowledge and his

agreement . . ..” (DE #1 at 13.) However, Owens was not found guilty based on that

opinion about the value of suboxone or under what conditions a sender would be

willing to send it to Offender Hill. Rather, he was found guilty based on staff reports,

his own statement, the evidence of witnesses, and the physical evidence. (See DE #1 at

23.) Moreover, the formal rules of evidence do not apply to prison disciplinary

proceedings. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) and Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d

660, 666 (7th Cir. 2003). Therefore, it was not a due process violation for the reporting

officer to have expressed an opinion or speculated in the Conduct Report. 

Fourth, Owens argues that he was charged with a fictitious code because

“111/113” does not exist. However, it is the factual basis of the charge, not the name of

it or the code number assigned to the violation that is relevant. See Northern v. Hanks,

326 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, the factual basis of the charge of attempted

trafficking was clearly set forth in the Conduct Report. (See DE #1 at 13.) Therefore

Owens has not presented any basis for habeas corpus relief.

2
Finally, Owens asks to be appointed counsel. The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B), permits the appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus case, if “given

the difficulty of the case and the litigant’s ability, [he] could not obtain justice without

an attorney, he could not obtain a lawyer on his own, and he would have . . . a

reasonable chance of winning with a lawyer at his side.” Winsett v. Washington, 130 F.3d

269, 281 (7th Cir. 1997) (brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted). Here, Owens

has not demonstrated that he has made any attempt to obtain counsel on his own.

Nevertheless, he is literate and clearly knowledgeable about his case. However, his

claims are simply meritless. There is no reason to believe he would have had a

reasonable chance of winning if he had been represented by a lawyer. Therefore the

request for counsel will be denied. 

For the foregoing reasons, the request for counsel (DE #4) is DENIED. The

habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This

case is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 24, 2015

 s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT