1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

 

FRANK LLOYD, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:15-CV-479-TLS 

 ) 

SUPERINTENDENT, ) 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

 Frank Lloyd, a pro se prisoner, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition [ECF No. 4] challenging a 

prison disciplinary hearing conducted at the Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”) on July 

24, 2015, where a hearing officer found Lloyd guilty of group demonstration/work stoppage 

under case number WCC-15-07-0216. The charges were initiated when Officer Mirich wrote a 

conduct report stating as follows: 

On the above time and date I O[fficer] Mirich observed Offender #943174 Lloyd, 

Frank enter the closed dayroom and begin engaging in the encouragement of other 

offenders in a group demonstration. Offender Lloyd began shouting, “this is some 

bullshit I aint leaving the dayroom, this is some bullshit” the offender then turned 

to others and began shouting “lets lock this bitch down we aint leaving this 

mother fucker.” At this time other offenders began shouting “Yeah lets lock this 

bitch down, fuck that we aint leaving the dayroom.” At this time, I called for a 

supervisor and offender Lloyd was escorted off the dorm to post 2 holding area. 

 

(Report of Conduct, ECF No. 13-1.) 

 The Screening Report [ECF No. 13-2] reflects that Lloyd was notified of the offense on 

July 14, 2015, and pled not guilty, requested a lay advocate, and requested witness statements 

from Offenders Kennedy and Jones. In addition, Lloyd requested that the hearing officer view 

the surveillance video. The requested written statements were collected. The hearing officer 

viewed the video, and provided a written summary: 
2 

Upon review of the video, I, O[fficer] Vorrier observe that there is no audio 

available so I am unable to hear what was spoken. This does not mean that the 

incident did not occur. I do observe Offender Lloyd being escorted out of the 

dorm. 

(Screening Report 5, ECF No. 13-2.) 

 During the disciplinary hearing Lloyd provided a written statement: 

I wasn’t handcuffed when they escorted me off. He said I was shouting. He closed 

the dayroom down. I was cooking. That’s it. We never even had a conversation. 

Nobody was screaming or shouting. None of that happened in the dayroom. The 

dayroom was shut down at 10 to be cleaned. I just told him that the dayroom gets 

cleaned. . . . That’s not my demeanor. I don’t talk like that. 

(Report of Disciplinary Hr’g, ECF No. 13-3.) After considering the conduct report, Lloyd’s 

statement, the witness statements and the video review, the hearing officer found Lloyd guilty, 

and imposed a sanction 30 days lost of good-time credit. Lloyd’s appeals to the facility head and 

the final reviewing authority were denied. [ECF Nos. 13-4, 13-5.] 

 In his Petition, Lloyd asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty 

finding. In reviewing a disciplinary determination for sufficiency of the 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.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th 

Cir. 1999). “[T]he 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). The court will overturn the hearing officer’s decision only if “no reasonable 

adjudicator could have found [the prisoner] guilty of the offense on the basis of the evidence 

presented.” Henderson v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1994). 

 Lloyd was found guilty of Class B offense 223. (Resp. to Show Cause Order 5, ECF No. 

13.) A prisoner is guilty of that offense if he “[engaged] in or [encourages] others to engage in, a 
3 

group demonstration, work stoppage or refusal to work.” (Id.) In this case, there is sufficient 

evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination. The conduct report alone constitutes 

some evidence that Lloyd engaged in and encouraged others to engage in a group demonstration. 

As such, the Court cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination was arbitrary or 

without evidentiary support. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786 (finding that conduct report provided 

sufficient evidence to support disciplinary determination). 

 Lloyd suggests that the video evidence proves his innocence. It does not. He claims it 

shows that he did not turn to the other offenders to encourage them, and that his demeanor was 

not reflective of someone who was engaging in the behavior described in the conduct report. 

(Am. Pet. 2, ECF No. 4.) The Court has reviewed the video and finds that it is not exculpatory 

because it does not undercut the evidence in the conduct report. Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 

721 (7th Cir. 1996). At best the video is inconclusive. As the summary of the video pointed out, 

there is no audio so it is not possible to discern what Lloyd or any one else said. Moreover, much 

of the incident does not appear to be captured on video. The video simply shows Lloyd being 

escorted away by four officers and, at one point, Lloyd gets into an animated discussion with one 

of the officers. 

 As stated above, the question for this Court is whether there is any evidence in the record 

to support the hearing officer’s conclusion. Because the video does not undermine the conduct 

report, there is some evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that Lloyd engaged 

in or encouraged others to engage in a group demonstration. Lloyd’s claim is simply an 

invitation for the Court to re-weigh the evidence, which is not this Court’s function on habeas 

review. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786. Consequently, there is no basis for granting habeas relief. 
4 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition [ECF No. 4] is DENIED and the 

Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 

 SO ORDERED on November 22, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FORT WAYNE DIVISION