UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

GREGORY D. SOBIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15CV48-PPS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Gregory Sobin, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the

loss of 90 days earned credit time and demotion from Credit Class 2 to Credit Class 3

after a prison disciplinary hearing. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty

of “threatening another” in violation of Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC)

policy B-213. [ECF 12 at 2.] Sobin identifies several grounds for relief but I will focus

on just one of them because that ground entitles him to habeas corpus relief. 

Sobin argues that the hearing officer did not have sufficient evidence to support

a guilty finding. [ECF 12 at 3.] In the disciplinary context, “the relevant question is

whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached

by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).

Admittedly, the standard of review is a lenient one. Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652

(7th Cir. 2000). 

1
Problems arose for Mr. Sobin when he fired off a letter to a correctional officer

named Page. Here’s what he said to Page in the letter:

C/O Page:

You “Tyrone Page” definatly needs to cease & desist all of your threats

you have made against me, all due to your sexual antics you intentionally

partook in on the day you came to my cell to harass me! 

You know what you did, as I do, your threats cause I reported you, means

nothin to me, but it will be dealt with in court.

You have repeatedly came to my outside cell window on *9-3-2014, *9-18-

2014 & again on *8-22-2014 pounding on my window & threatening me

harm & informing me of some class A conduct report I got coming. 

(which don’t impress me gump)

My concern is your continuing threats outside of my window, during

your documented security checks outside. There is record of your outside

security checks! Didnt you know!

Just as there is record of what you did to me on 8-31-2014, if that video

tape was properly reviewed. You know what you did Page, as will the

U.S. District Court know. 

The only reason you have not been fired due to your groping, is due to my

lawsuit filed against Internal Affairs Sup. Chuck Whalan, & the video tape

was not reviewed, point blank!

They don’t like me, as I don’t like them, & they covered up your gump

actions, by not reviewing the tape. 

This will be reviewed, as will my suit against you Hoozier, rectify this

matter. 

Stop your continual threats & getting on my speaker making further

threats as you did while c/o Morales was OIC on 9-22-2014. 

You know what you did & continual to do!

2
This all will be fully documented by all of your superiors, whom allow

you to do outside security checks, for the sole purpose to harass me &

threaten me outside my window! 

{9-3-2014}

{9-18-2014}

{9-22-2014}

You know what your doing, & only think you are able to get away with it,

& that I.A. will safeguard your illegal acts, due to their hatred of me. The

truth will come out. 

[ECF 39-1 at 2-5 (emphasis in original).]

Officer Page didn’t take the missive from Sobin sitting down. He decided to

write Sobin up. Here’s what Page said in the Conduct Report written on November 22,

2014 at 7:10 p.m.: 

At the above date and time of incident [November 22, 2014] I Ofc. T. Page

received institutionalized mail from offender Sobin, Gregory #113650. I

made copies of this mail and did a[n] incident report sending it to internal

affairs. I was notified by internal affairs after reviewing the documents to

do a report of conduct for the offender lying providing a false statement. I

have now been informed by disciplinary hearing board to re-write as

threatening.

[ECF 39-1.] 

Officer Page also penned an incident report concerning his receipt of the letter

from Sobin. That report was also written on November 22 about a half hour after the

conduct report was drafted. Here’s what Page wrote in the incident report: 

At the above date and time [November 22, 2014] I Ofc. T. Page was

informed of a letter that was sent to me from offender Sobin, Gregory

#113650. The letter is falsely accusing me of actions of sexual contact,

harassment, I.A. not reviewing tape and threats of a lawsuit. Offender

3
Sobin, Gregory has falsely accused me Ofc. T. Page for some time of

sexual contact found not to be true by internal affairs. Offender has

accused me of harassing him by knocking on his cell window during

security rounds which is not true. Offender Sobin, Gregory has

continually harassed and falsely accuse[d] me in attempt to defame my

character to have me terminated and win a lawsuit from the state. 

[ECF 39-4 at 1-2.] 

Sobin’s letter was harassing and belligerent. But the letter did not constitute a

threat against Page, in violation of B-213. At the time Sobin was disciplined, the

Department of Corrections defined a violation of B-213 as “Threatening another with

bodily harm or with an offense against the person or property.” Indiana Department of

Correction Disciplinary Process For Adult Offenders, Policy No. 02–04–101 (eff. June 1,

2012). See also Craddick v. Superintendent, No. 3:13CV753, 2014 WL 936973, at *2 (N.D.

Ind. Mar. 10, 2014) (holding that hearing officer did not have sufficient evidence to find

prisoner guilty of threatening). The hearing officer in this case did not have sufficient

evidence because the contents of Sobin’s letter did not “[t]hreat[en] another with bodily

harm or with an offense against the person or property.” [Id.] The offense is defined in

terms of physical violence, but Sobin’s letter contained only threats of legal action. In

fact, Officer Page himself did not understand the letter as a threat of physical violence.

Rather, Officer Page wrote in his incident report that Sobin “has continually harassed

and falsely accuse me in attempt to defame my character to have me terminated and

win a lawsuit from the state.” [ECF 39-4 at 2.] Because the letter does not threaten

physical violence, it does not violate B-213. 

4
Respondent claims that the hearing officer did have sufficient evidence to find

Sobin guilty because Sobin made an accusation that he knew to be false. [ECF 39 at 10.]

But this argument rests on the IDOC’s current definition of B-213. The IDOC updated

its disciplinary code in June 2015, and amended B-213 to prohibit an offender from

intentionally making a false statement or harassing another person. Disciplinary

Process, http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101_APPENDIX_I-OFFENSES_

6-1-2015(1).pdf (updated June 1, 2015). However, the hearing officer found Sobin guilty

in December 2014, months before B-213 was amended. This court ordered Respondent

to quote or cite specific portions of the letter that were threatening, and he did not do

so. [ECF 38, 39.] Thus, in the absence of any evidence that Sobin’s statements fell

within the purview of B-213 (as it was written at the time), Sobin is entitled to habeas

corpus relief. 

ACCORDINGLY:

Gregory D. Sobin’s amended habeas corpus petition [DE 12] is GRANTED. The

Respondent is ORDERED to file documentation by July 13, 2017, showing that the

guilty finding in WCU 14-12-84 has been vacated and that any loss in earned credit time

or demotion in credit class imposed as a result of this guilty finding is restored. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 20, 2017.

 /s/ Philip P. Simon 

United States District Court Judge

5