UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RALPHFEL BELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-80 RL 

vs. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Ralphfel

Bell, a pro se prisoner. For the reasons set forth below, the

petition (ECF 1) is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this

case.

BACKGROUND

In the petition, Bell challenges the prison disciplinary

hearing (ISP 16-01-106) where he was found guilty of possession

and/or use of a cell phone in violation of A-121 by the

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO). ECF 1 at 1. Bell was sanctioned

with the loss of 90 days earned credit time and was demoted from

Credit Class 2 to Credit Class 3. Id. While Bell asserts three

grounds in his petition, each of the grounds in his petition

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. 

The Conduct Report charges:

-1-
[o]n 1/11/16 at approx. 0830 2 phones and a USB wall

charger and cord were found hidden in a cracker box at

the back of the range in a empty trash bag tied to the

railing. With the tools available to this office of

Investigations and Intelligence the phone was able to be

accessed. On the phone were photos of Offender Bell,

messages and voice recordings that all identified the

phone to belong to Offender Bell, Ralphfel # 998078. The

Face Book Page that was on the phone was Offender Bell,

Raphfel (sic) identified by him by name. 

ECF 1-1 at 1. 

Bell has not filed a traverse to Respondent’s return to the

order to show cause, nor has he sought additional time to do so. 

He is now several months past his deadline to file a traverse, and

therefore, this case is deemed fully briefed. 

DISCUSSION

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 their 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).

-2-
Bell argues that the DHO did not have sufficient evidence to

find him guilty because he was not in physical possession of the

cell phone at the time it was discovered. ECF 1 at 2. He claims

that the phone was discovered in a trash bag in a common area, and

that at the time of its discovery he was in a different part of the

prison. Id. Bell also argues that there were photographs of four

other inmates on the phone, and therefore it is impossible to

determine the true owner of the phone. Id. Respondent, on the

other hand, contends that there was sufficient evidence for the DHO

to find Bell guilty. Respondent points to the text messages and

photographs connecting Bell to the phone as “some evidence” that

Bell used or possessed the phone. ECF 8 at 8. The court agrees. 

In evaluating whether there is adequate evidence to support

the findings of a prison disciplinary hearing, “the relevant

question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill,

472 U.S. at 455-56. Even a conduct report alone can provide

evidence sufficient to support the finding of guilt. McPherson v.

McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). 

In reviewing a decision for some evidence, courts are not

required to 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.

Hill, 472 U.S. at 457 (quotations marks and citation omitted). 

[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need only]

-3-
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. Although some evidence is not much, it still

must point to the accused’s guilt. It is not our province

to assess the comparative weight of the evidence

underlying the disciplinary board’s decision. 

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

marks, citations, parenthesis, and ellipsis omitted). 

Here, there was sufficient evidence to find Bell guilty of

possession or use of a cell phone. Indiana Department of Correction

(IDOC) policy A-121 prohibits “[u]nauthorized use or possession of

any cellular telephone or other wireless or cellular communications

device.” Adult Disciplinary Process, Appendix I: Offenses.

http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101_APPENDIX_I-OFFENSES_6-1-20

15(1).pdf. Bell’s emphasis on the physical location of the cell

phone at the time of its discovery is misplaced. IDOC policy

prohibits possession or use. When the phone was searched,

photographs of Bell were discovered, the Facebook page on the phone

belonged to Bell, and there were text messages explicitly

identifying the user of the phone as Bell, including a message

identifying Bell by his IDOC inmate number. This is certainly “some

evidence” that Bell used or possessed the cell phone at some time -

even if he was not in physical possession of the phone at the time

of its discovery.

The DHO heard Bell’s arguments, weighed the facts, and found

-4-
against him. There is no indication that the decision was

arbitrary. Bell’s assertions to the contrary, the DHO was not

required to definitely exclude the possibility that any other

offender was the true owner of the phone. “The 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. Moreover, it is not for this court to reweigh the evidence. The DHO determined that Bell used the phone

and this was a sufficient basis on which to find him guilty. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the petition (ECF 1) is

DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 

DATED: May 18, 2017 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United States District Court

-5-