UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ANTONIO PUTMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) No. 3:14 CV 2045

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Antonio Putman, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition challenging

the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 14-08-126) that was held at the Indiana State Prison

on August 14, 2014. The Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of

Violating State Law by possessing a synthetic drug look-alike substance in violation of

A-100 and sanctioned him with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and demotion to

Credit Class 2. Putnam raises four grounds in his petition.

First, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty because

the is no evidence that he intended to represent the green leafy substance found in a

baggie hidden in his pillow as a real drug. However, “A person who possesses a

synthetic drug or synthetic drug look-alike substance commits possession of a synthetic

drug or synthetic drug look-alike substance, a Class B infraction.” Indiana Code §

35-48-4-11.5(b). The statute does not require that the possessor represent the substance

as anything – possession alone is sufficient. 
“[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only] 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 the record is not so

devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary board were without support or

otherwise arbitrary. ” Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). Here, Putnam does not dispute that he possessed the

green leafy substance which looked like an illegal drug. Thus there was sufficient

evidence to have found him guilty. Nevertheless, even if the DHB had been required to

find that Putman was representing the green leafy substance as an illegal drug, the fact

that he stored it in a baggie hidden in his pillow would have been sufficient evidence to

find that the DHB was not arbitrary in reaching that conclusion. Therefore Ground One

is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

Second, Putnam argues that it was a violation of due process for the DHB not to

have obtained a statement from the officer who found the green leafy substance in the

baggie in his pillow. Though an inmate has a right to present relevant, exculpatory

evidence, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974), prison officials are not required to

present a statement from every conceivable witness. Here, the Conduct Report (DE 1-1

at 1) was written by the officer who tested the green leafy substance and a statement

was written by an officer who was present when the hidden baggie was found. (DE 1-1

at 6.) Putnam was given the opportunity to request additional statements, but he

2
indicated “I do not wish to call any witnesses.” (DE 1-1 at 3). Therefore Ground Two is

not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

Third, Putnam argues that he should not have been found guilty because the

field test of the green leafy substance was negative. If the test had been positive, the

substance would have proven to be an illegal drug and he would have been disciplined

for a different violation. But because the hidden green leafy substance looked like an

illegal drug and probably because he was storing it like it was an illegal drug, he was

properly charged and found guilty of possessing a synthetic drug look-alike substance.

Therefore, Ground Three is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

Fourth, Putnam argues that the State of Indiana should not be able to criminalize

possession of synthetic drug look-alike substances. However, this statute has already

been found to be constitutional. Little Arm Inc. v. Adams, 13 F. Supp. 3d 914, 925 (S.D.

Ind. 2014). Ground Four is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to Section

2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: July 21, 2015

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT