UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

DONTE ICE, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-cv-154 

 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 Donte 

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

petition (ECF 1) is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The 

clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Donte Ice is DENIED leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

BACKGROUND 

 In his petition, Ice challenges the prison disciplinary 

hearing (MCF 15-10-290) where he was found guilty of Possession or 

Use of Controlled Substance in violation of Indiana Department of 

Correction (IDOC) policy A-106. ECF 1 at 1. The Conduct Report 

states that on October 15, 2015, Sergeant Uhle conducted a search 

of Ice’s cell with his canine partner. ECF 1-1 at 12. Uhle’s canine 

partner signaled that there was contraband in Ice’s property box. 
2 

Id. Uhle’s search of the property box revealed an altered BBQ sauce 

bottle containing a secret compartment. Id. Within the secret 

compartment Uhle discovered “a white powdery substance wrapped in 

cellophane.” Id. Uhle issued Ice a disciplinary ticket pursuant to 

IDOC B-202. Id. 

Ice’s hearing was held on November 5, 2015, by the 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO). Id. Ice was sanctioned with 

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

Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id. Ice lists three grounds which he 

claims entitles him to relief. 

DISCUSSION 

 In Grounds One and Two, Ice lists a number of overlapping 

issues regarding the procedure and substance of his disciplinary 

hearing. Each of these issues relates to the sufficiency of the 

evidence the DHO relied upon in determining that Ice was guilty. 

In the disciplinary context, the DHO needs only a small amount 

of evidence on which to find an inmate guilty. “[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). “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 
3 

prison disciplinary board’s decision to revoke good time credits 

has some factual basis.” McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786 (quotation 

marks omitted). 

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

only] 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). A Conduct 

Report alone can be sufficient evidence to support a finding of 

guilt. McPherson, 188 F.3d at 786. 

Here, there was sufficient evidence to find Ice guilty of 

Possession or Use of Controlled Substance. The IDOC defines 

Possession or Use of Controlled Substance, offense B-202, as 

follows: “[p]ossession or use of any unauthorized substance 

controlled pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana or the 

United States Code or possession of drug paraphernalia.” Adult 

Disciplinary Process, Appendix I: Offenses. 

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

2015(1).pdf. The contraband was found in Ice’s property box. ECF 

1-1 at 12. Ice admits that he was in possession of the bottle 

containing the white powdery substance. ECF 1-1 at 9. Though Ice 
4 

argues that he was not aware that the BBQ sauce bottle contained 

contraband, the DHO did not have to believe him. It was not 

arbitrary for the DHO to not believe him because it was found in 

his property. However, even if Ice did not know, the IDOC did not 

make intent an element of B-202. Rather, possession alone is 

sufficient to violate this policy. 

 Ice argues that the substance found in his cell should have 

been tested to conclusively determine that the white powder was a 

controlled substance. Ice is incorrect. Though prisoners have a 

right to submit relevant exculpatory evidence, they do not have 

the right to create evidence which does not already exist because 

“[p]rison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the 

hearing within reasonable limits.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. See 

also Portee v. Vannatta, 105 F. App’x 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2004) 

(upholding disciplinary officer’s denial of inmate’s request for 

DNA testing). Uhle’s canine partner signaled that Ice’s property 

box contained contraband. Uhle then discovered the white powdery 

substance in Ice’s property box. In light of this evidence, the 

DHO’s determination was not arbitrary. IDOC’s decision not to send 

the contraband to a lab for official testing is not a basis for 

habeas corpus relief. 

Ice also asserts that he is entitled to relief based on the 

alleged “lack of chain of custody.” ECF 1 at 2. According to Ice, 

the lack of a chain of custody denied him due process. However, 
5 

“[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal 

prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in 

such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556. In prison 

disciplinary cases, due process does not require a complete chain 

of custody. Rather, “[a]bsent some affirmative indication that a 

mistake may have been made, [the] hypothetical possibility of 

tampering does not render evidence inadmissible, but goes instead 

to the weight of the evidence.” Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 

653 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, there is no affirmative indication of 

a mistake. Therefore, the lack of a chain of custody report is not 

a basis for habeas corpus relief. 

In Ground Three, Ice claims that he is entitled to relief 

because the “evidence supports [a] lesser included offense.” ECF 

1 at 2. Ice is incorrect. The harshness of the punishment imposed 

is not a valid basis for challenging a DHO’s decision, so long as 

the punishment is within the range designated for the offense. Cf. 

United States ex rel. Long v. Pate, 418 F.2d 1028, 1031 (7th Cir. 

1970) (where a sentence is “within the range established by the 

legislature ... this court will not [on habeas corpus review] 

question the trial judge’s discretion in imposing sentence...”). 

Here, IDOC policy sets the maximum loss of earned credit time for 

a Class B offense as three-months. Disciplinary Code for Adult 

Offenders. http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-

101_The_Disciplinary_Code_for_Adult_Offenders___6-1-2015.pdf. Ice 
6 

lost 90 days of his earned credit time. IDOC policy sets the 

maximum credit class reduction for a Class B offense as one-class 

demotion. Ice received a one-class demotion. Id. Because the DHO 

sentenced Ice within the appropriate guidelines, Ice is not 

entitled to habeas corpus relief based on Ground Three. 

If Ice wants to appeal this order, he does not need a 

certificate of appealability because he is challenging a prison 

disciplinary proceeding. See Evans v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665, 

666 (7th Cir. 2009). However, he may not proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal in 

this case could not be taken in good faith. 

CONCLUSION 

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

DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The clerk is DIRECTED to 

close this case. Donte Ice DENIED leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. 

DATED: April 18, 2017 

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

 United States District Court