UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

COADY COYOTE CRADDICK, )

)

Petitioner, )

) No. 3:13 CV 753

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION and ORDER

Coady Coyote Craddick, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 1.) In MCF #13-05-0220, a

hearing officer found Craddick guilty of threatening, after he sent letters to another

inmate attempting to retrieve an eagle feather he had loaned the inmate for use in his

religious practices. (DE # 9-6 at 1.) The charge was initiated on May 17, 2013, when 1

Administrative Assistant Clair Barnes wrote a conduct report stating as follows:

On the above date and time, I became aware that Offender Coady Craddick

#30794 had given a written letter to another offender, Offender Danny

Darling #111331. The letter was given to Offender Darling in violation of

policy. Offenders are prohibited from corresponding with each other

through written or electronic communication. In this letter, Offender

Craddick demands that Offender Darling return property that Offender

Craddick gave to Offender Darling. Offender Craddick states, in part, “The

disrespect stops here” and “Then explain that to the DNR and DOC

Administration when they pay you a visit” and “Make sure you explain to

them how you meet the definition of ‘Indian.’” Because Offender Craddick

is communicating a plan to intimidate another offender into acquiescing to

Craddick is Native American and is in possession of a U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and 1

Wildlife Permit for certain bird feathers to be used in Native American religious ceremonies. (DE # 9-8 at 3.)
his will, Offender Craddick is being charged with committing a B-213

violation.

(DE # 9-1 at 1.) The letters Craddick sent were attached to the conduct report. (Id. at 2-

6.) 

On May 21, 2013, Craddick was formally notified of the charge and given a copy

of the conduct report. (DE # 9-1 at 1; DE # 9-2.) He pled not guilty, requested the

assistance of a lay advocate, requested witness statements from Assistant

Superintendent D. Walls and Correctional Officer J. Fivecoate, and requested a letter he

had sent to Walls as physical evidence. (DE # 9-2.) The statements were obtained, and

Walls stated as follows:

I received a letter from Mr. Craddick requesting my help in retrieving an

eagle feather that he loaned to Danny Darling #111331. I sent Lt. Schoettmier

to retrieve the feather and paperwork, which he did without incident. The

letter that was addressed to me by Mr. Craddick was in no way threatening

to me.

(DE # 9-4 at 1.) Officer Fivecoate stated as follows:

I was informed of a council member named Darling, Danny #11331 that had

possession of the Native American eagle feather [owned] by Ofd. Craddick,

Cody #30754. He asked if I could get this item back from him and I advised

him I was busy at this point in time. It would probably be best if he went

through the chapl[a]in. As far as the letters from offender to offender go, I

have no knowledge of those.

(DE # 9-3 at 1.)

On June 4, 2013, the hearing officer conducted a hearing on the charge. (DE # 9-6

at 1.) Craddick stated in his defense that the chaplain allowed members of the Native

American circle to communicate with each other. (Id.) He further stated that his letters

2
to Darling were not meant to be threatening. (Id.) Based on the letters, staff reports, and

witness statements, the hearing officer found him guilty. (Id.) As a result he was

demoted to a lower credit-earning class, lost his prison job, and was removed from

various prison programs. (Id.; see also DE # 1 at 1.) His administrative appeals were

denied (DE # 9-7, DE # 9-8), and he thereafter filed this petition.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees prisoners certain procedural due

process rights in prison disciplinary hearings: (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 the fact-finder

of evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539 (1974). To satisfy due process, there must also be “some evidence” in the record

to support the guilty finding. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455

(1985). 

Craddick’s central claim, which he formulates in various ways, is that there was

insufficient evidence to find him guilty of threatening. (DE # 1 at 4-6.) The “some

evidence” standard is not demanding, and prison officials are given considerable

leeway over prison disciplinary matters. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. By the same token,

while “some evidence is not much, it still must point to the accused’s guilt.” Webb v.

Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th

Cir. 1989) (evidence insufficient under “some evidence” test where it only established

3
petitioner’s presence in the area when other inmates attempted to escape). Here,

Craddick was found guilty of threatening, which is defined as: “Threatening another

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

Department of Correction (“IDOC”) Disciplinary Process For Adult Offenders, Policy

No. 02-04-101 (eff. June 1, 2012). Upon review of the letters in their entirety, the court

agrees with Craddick that they do not contain any statements that meet this definition. 

The first document is an open letter from Craddick to “Individuals who Possess

A Golden Eagle Feather or Hawk Feather I Personally Handed Down to Them.”(DE # 9-

1 at 3-4.) In the letter Craddick expresses his view that certain inmates who were in

possession of his feathers were not acting in accordance with Native American

principles, including using profanity around the feathers, showing off the feathers to

others in a “boastful” manner, and failing to attend Native American religious services.

(Id.) He closed the letter as follows:

The eagle and hawk feathers were not intended for these purposes listed

above. The disrespect stops here, and believe me I have learned a valuable

lesson in never to hand down eagle or hawk feathers to individuals who

display such behavior and attitudes. 

If you feel this pertains to you and you have displayed anything listed above,

then you need to return the feather(s) and federal permit. 

(DE # 9-1 at 4.) 

Darling responded in a three-page letter, expressing his gratitude to Craddick for

“blessing me by handing down to me personally a golden eagle feather.” (DE # 9-8 at

6.) He described at length how he had been using the feather in his religious practices.

4
He also explained that he had not been attending religious services due to a conflict

with his work schedule, which he had attempted to resolve with prison staff but

without success. (Id.) In closing he stated:

Chino said he was supposed to show up at my cell with an officer to pick it

up. I don’t have a problem returning the feather to you, but my prayers have

been joined with that feather and I would prefer to give it back to you

personally, if that’s what you want.

With respect, gratitude, & love

Danny Darling

(DE # 9-8 at 8.) 

Craddick responded with another letter, expressing frustration that Darling had

not given the feather to the other inmate Craddick had asked to collect it. (DE # 9-1 at

6.) He went on to state:

Enough disrespect has been shown to me, my eagle and hawk feathers and

paperwork by individuals who claim to walk this path of Native American

spirituality and culture. It was recommended by the Department of Natural

Resources to collect all my feathers and paperwork, and that’s exactly what

I am doing! Believe me, my feathers and paperwork are being collected from

individuals who do not participate in the circle! I’m not accusing you of

being disrespectful or not walking this path, but I have a responsibility to my

feathers and they are legally my property to keep account of. 

Please give Thunder Eagle the eagle feather and paperwork. Thank you!

(DE # 9-1 at 6.) 

Apparently Darling did not return the feather as instructed, because Craddick

then wrote a letter to Walls, asking for his help in securing the return of the feather. (DE

# 9-1 at 2.) After explaining the situation he stated, “I do not desire to see Offender

5
Darling in any trouble, only that my feather be returned[.]” (DE # 9-1 at 2.) Thereafter,

he wrote a final letter to Darling stating:

This letter is to inform you that the issue with my Golden Eagle Feather and

copy of my Federal Permit have been turned over to the Department of

Natural Resources and the DOC Administration for proper action. You left

me no choice, its out of my hands now!

Since you believe that you are a bona fide American Indian entitled to eagle

feathers, and believe that the Golden Eagle feather and Federal Permit are

your property, then explain that to the DNR and DOC Administration when

they pay you a visit.

Also, make sure you explain how you meet the definition of “Indian” as

stated on the federal permit, and how, by false pretense acquired the Golden

Eagle feather and copy of the federal permit?

(DE # 9-1 at 5.) 

Even giving ample deference to prison officials, nothing in Craddick’s letters

could be construed as a threat to inflict physical harm or commit an offense against

Darling’s person or property. Instead, the letters suggest that Craddick was trying to

appeal to Darling’s better judgment, or perhaps make him feel guilty, in order to

recover property which belonged to Craddick. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he

turned the matter over to the authorities. He then advised Darling, in essence, that the

matter was out of his hands and that Darling would have to explain himself to the

authorities. Portions of his letters might be construed as arrogant or sarcastic, but they

are not threatening. 

Perhaps the most troubling language in the letters is Craddick’s statement “the

disrespect stops here.” In certain contexts, these words could be said in a threatening

6
manner. Here, however, Craddick did not convey any threat of harm or other negative

ramifications to Darling if he did not return the feather. He merely expressed

indignation that, in his view, the feathers were being misused by members of the circle

and requested that they be returned to him. Craddick may have violated the rule

prohibiting inmates from communicating with each other in writing, although he

apparently believed himself exempt from this rule as chairman of the Native American

religious circle. (See DE # 9-6 at 1.) But that issue is not before the court. The sole issue is

whether Craddick’s statements constituted threatening, and on that point the evidence

is deficient. Accordingly, the guilty finding will be vacated.2

For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE # 1) is GRANTED, and the

guilty finding in MCF #13-05-0220 is VACATED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 10, 2014

s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Craddick also argues that the written statement he received was inadequate and that he was denied 2

an impartial decision-maker because Barnes unduly injected herself into the hearing process. (DE # 1 at 5-6.)

It is unnecessary to reach these arguments since the guilty finding is being vacated for lack of evidence.

Craddick’s other arguments regarding violations of IDOC policies during the hearing process are not

cognizable in this proceeding. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Hester v. McBride, 966 F. Supp. 765,

775 (N.D. Ind. 1997).

7