UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

ERWIN PILGRIM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 4:15 CV 102

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Erwin Pilgrim, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Miami Correctional

Facility (MCF-15-08-0246) on September 1, 2015. (DE # 1.) There, he was found guilty of

battery with a weapon in violation of Code A-102 and sanctioned with the loss of 90

days earned credit time and a demotion in credit class by a hearing officer. (Id.) The

charge was initiated on August 18, 2015, when Custody Officer Jones wrote a conduct

report:

On August 18, 2015 I, Officer R. Jones and Sgt. C. Shaffer was assigned as

kitchen custody. We called for the DA1 food service count letter to the

production hallway to be searched and released back to their assigned

housing units. We observed offender Sosbe Brian 109346 had a swollen

eye. Upon furth[e]r observation we noticed that he was wearing two tshirts. The bottom t-shirt had blood on the collar. We then observed

offender Pilgrim Erwin 229251 approaching the hallway without a t-shirt

on. We then questioned Offender Pilgrim where his t-shirt was. Pilgrim

advised us that he did not wear a shirt to work. We then ordered Offender

Sosbe to remove his shirts, at that time we noticed that the outter [sic]

shirt had the letters “NY[.]” Offender Pilgrim[‘]s nickname is “New

York[.]” Pilgrim then admitted to us that the white shirt with the letters

“NY” was his and that Offender Sosbe asked to borrow it. We then

escorted offender Sosbe to the production hallway janitor closet and
stripped him out. We observed that offender Sosbe had several punctures

to his body, back, neck, and head. Offender Sosbe also had two swollen

eyes. We questioned Sosbe about what had happened. Offender Sosbe

advised us that he had slip[p]ed in water and fell in the walk in cooler.

Upon further questioning Offender Sosbe stated that he could not tell us

anything because he had to live here. We then escorted offender Sosbe to

the production bathroom. We then placed Offender Pilgrim in the

production janitor closet and stripped him out. During the strip search we

observed that Offender Pilgrim had what is to be believed to be blood on

his jumpsuit, and several blood stains on his white t-shirt. We questioned

Offender Pilgrim about the blood stains. Pilgrim advised us that the stains

were from the bloody t-shirt that Offender Sosbe was wearing. Offender

Pilgrim’s story seemed unfeasable [sic]. Sgt. Shaffer then placed

mechanical restraints on Offender Pilgrim and called for phase 1 yard staff

to escort him to RHU. We then talked to Offender Sosbe in the production

bathroom, but he continued to advise us that he could not say anything

due to him having to live here. Offender Sosbe was then escorted to Phase

1 medical with a report of offender [i]njury to be seen by medical. Myself

and Sgt. Shaffer searched the production walk in cooler where the

incident occurred. We were able to locate 2 black metal rods stuffed inside

a brown lunch sack.[] We also searched the trash can located outside the

offender bathroom in production and located several white paper towels

that had blood on them. 

(DE # 5-1.)

On August 24, 2015, Pilgrim was formally notified of the charge and given a

copy of the conduct report. (DE # 5-2.) He pled not guilty and did not request the

assistance of a lay advocate. (Id.) He did request to call Offender Brian Sosbe as a

witness and also asked to review the video and pictures of the two black rods. (Id.)

Offender Sosbe submitted a written statement:

I had blood all over my white t-shirt and wasn’t gonna make it through

the shake down. I knew they would try to say I got in a fight and didn’t

want to get in trouble so I went around asking for a different shirt.

Offender Pilgrim said I could use his to get out just to wash it and bring it

back the next day. 

2
(DE # 5-4.)

Sandra Gunter also submitted a written statement:

I, Sandra Gunter, was enroute to the Production office when offender

Sosbe #109397 was entering the Food Bank. Offender Sosbe was to be

enroute down the production hallway to go back to his housing unit. I

then opened the food bank door to see offender Pilgram #229251 bare

chested with his greens around his waist. I asked him what he was doing

and he said that he borrowed a T-shirt from Sosbe and that he was giving

it back. I informed him to get out of the food bank and down the hallway.

Sgt Shaffer and Officer Jones were at the entrance of production hallway

when I got them out of the food bank. Said officers then took control of

the situation. 

(DE # 5-3.)

The video was reviewed:

On 09/01/2015 I (J. Prater) reviewed the DVR[.] [T]he DVR of the Food

Service Area dated 08/18/2015 and the approx. time of 12:00pm to

1:00pm. This review was requested by offender Pilgrim, Erwin 229251 at

his screening on 08/24/2015 for case MCF 15-08-0246. Due to the position

of the cameras the incident that takes place can[]not be seen. 

(DE # 5-5.)

A disciplinary hearing was conducted on September 1, 2015, where Pilgrim

stated, “The write up does not say I assaulted anyone with a weapon. I just gave him a

t-shirt” and “This incident happened well before I knew anything about it.” (DE # 5-6.)

The hearing officer noted that the pictures of the black rods were unavailable and that

“no markings a fight happened.” (Id.) Relying on the staff reports and the evidence

from the witnesses, the hearing officer found Pilgrim guilty of assault with a weapon, in

violation of Code A-102. (Id.) Pilgrim appealed to the final reviewing authority, but his

appeal was denied. (DE ## 7-7; 7-9; 7-10.)

3
When prisoners lose earned time credits in a prison disciplinary hearing, they are

entitled to certain protections under the Due Process Clause: (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

a fact finder of evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974). To satisfy due process, there must also be “some

evidence” to support the hearing officer’s decision. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).

Pilgrim raises four issues in his petition, which can be consolidated into three: (1)

whether he received adequate notice of the charge; and; (2) whether the hearing

officer’s written report is adequate; and (3) whether the evidence supports the guilty

finding.

First, Pilgrim complains that the conduct report did not provide him with

adequate notice of the charge. The purpose of a conduct report is to inform the inmate

of the charge against him. Wolff requires advance notice of sufficient facts to inform the

accused of the behavior with which he is charged. 418 U.S. at 570. The conduct report

identifies the offense as “Assault/Battery upon another with a weapon.” The offense

code is identified as “A-102". As detailed above, the conduct report explained how the

battery was discovered, who was involved, a description of injuries to the victim, and a

summary of the statements from both Pilgrim and the victim as to what had taken

4
place, the location of the blood that was discovered during the searches of both men,

and a description of the weapons found in the area. (DE 5-1.) This clearly notified

Pilgrim that he was charged with battery with a weapon.

Because the factual basis of the investigation report gave [him] all the

information he needed to defend against the . . . charge, the reviewing

authority's modification did not deprive [him] of his due process rights.

Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, this is not a basis for habeas

relief.

Second, Pilgrim claims that the hearing officer’s written decision was inadequate

because it failed to explain why he was found guilty. The written statement

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, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the hearing officer’s report indicated that he

considered the conduct report, and the witness statements. (DE 5-6.) His statement is

not lengthy, but there is no mystery here. The hearing officer adequately identified the

evidence relied on for his decision, and it is clear that he chose to believe that all the

circumstantial evidence that Pilgrim battered the victim with a weapon over Pilgrim’s

denials. The written statement the hearing officer provided satisfied the minimal

requirements of due process, and therefore this claim is denied.

Third, Pilgrim claims that there was insufficient evidence to establish his guilt.

While Pilgrim makes much of the fact that there is no eyewitness testimony that Pilgrim

assaulted the victim, Pilgrim is merely asking this court to re-weigh the evidence. The

5
relevant question is whether there is some evidence to support the finding of guilt. See

Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. This is not a high standard, and in determining the sufficiency of

the evidence, courts do 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). The court will overturn a guilty

finding based on insufficient evidence 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). And, even a

Conduct Report alone can be sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt.

McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786. 

Pilgrim argues that he cannot be found guilty because there is no direct evidence

that he assaulted the victim. However, as explained, direct evidence is not required to

sustain a finding of guilt in a prison disciplinary hearing. Here, the circumstantial

evidence contained in the Conduct Report and witness statements is sufficient. It

reveals that Offender Sosbe was attacked and bleeding. It establishes that Pilgrim

admitted giving his shirt to Offender Sosbe, but he lied about it when he was initially

questioned. It also shows that Offender Sosbe did not rule out Pilgrim as his attacker. In

addition, blood was found on Pilgrim’s jumpsuit as well as his shirt without any

6
plausible explanation. And, finally, metal rods were found in the cooler where the

attack occurred along with several bloody paper towels in a nearby trash can. Based on

that, it was not arbitrary for the hearing officer to have inferred that it was Pilgrim who

assaulted the victim. Though that is not the only possible conclusion, “[t]he Federal

Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the

one reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. The evidence here was

sufficient to have found Pilgrim guilty. 

For these reasons, the amended petition (DE # 3) is DENIED and this case is

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: November 3, 2016

s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7