UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ELKANO MASTERSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:16 CV 38

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Elkano Masterson, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the 

prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 15-07-32) where a Westville Correctional Facility 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of possession of unauthorized 

property in violation of prison rule B-215 on July 8, 2015, and deprived him of 30 days 

earned credit time. (DE # 1 at 1.) Masterson=s petition raises four grounds, but all four 

grounds are different variations of his argument that the DHO did not have sufficient 

evidence to find him guilty. The court agrees.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Masterson=s cell was searched and a blue 

ski cap was found on his bunkbed. (DE ## 7-1 at 1; 7-4 at 1). He was charged with 

possession of unauthorized property. (DE # 1 at 1.) Masterson argues both that the hat 

belonged to his cellmate, and that the hat was not contraband because it was issued by a 

different IDOC facility. (Id. at 2-3.) Respondent only addresses the first part of 

Masterson=s petition, arguing that constructive possession is a sufficient basis on which 

to impose discipline. (DE # 7 at 6.) The issue, however, is not whether Masterson had 
2

actual or constructive possession. Rather, the issue is whether the blue ski cap was 

contraband.

The Conduct Report charges Masterson as follows: A[o]n above date, 06-30-2015, 

at approximately 2:15 pm I Officer S. Cordona performed a shakedown on offender 

Masterson, Elkano # 910270 bunk 8W244 and confiscated a blue knitted ski cap.@ (DE #

7-1 at 1.) Masterson=s hearing took place on July 8, 2015. (DE # 7-4 at 1.) At his hearing, 

Masterson reported that the ski cap was not his. (Id.) The DHO found Masterson guilty 

of possession of contraband A[b]ased on Conduct Report, offender statement, photo, 

evidence record.@ (Id.)

Masterson argues that the hat was an IDOC-issued hat. (DE # 1 at 2.) He argues 

that a different IDOC facility issues blue hats to prisoners, and that Westville does not 

confiscate these hats upon transfer to Westville. (Id.) While respondent does not directly 

address the issue, the IDOC tacitly conceded the point when, in response to Masterson=s 

disciplinary appeal, the facility denied the appeal on the basis that A[t]his particular hat 

is not issued at this facility.@ (DE # 7-6 at 1.) 

While there may be a rule at Westville prohibiting possession of blue ski hats, 

respondent fails to identify one. The Conduct Report states only that Masterson was in 

possession of the hat in violation of IDOC policy B-215. (DE # 7-1 at 1.) This policy is 

violated by the A[u]nauthorized possession, destruction, alteration, damage to, or theft 

of State property or property belonging to another.@ Adult Disciplinary Process, 

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

2015(1).pdf. However, there is no explanation in any of the disciplinary documents 
3

addressing the question of why Masterson=s possession of the hat violated B-215. 

Respondent also fails to address the issue in the response. 

Masterson, on the other hand, identifies a number of prison policies that appear to 

permit the possession of the hat. The Westville Correctional Facility General Rules and 

Procedures state:

Offenders at the Westville Correctional Facility are allowed to possess only 

those items permitted by Offender Personal Property Policy 02-01-101. 

Offenders are authorized to possess items purchased through facility 

commissary and approved facility programs within authorized limits. 

Upon arrival at Westville Correctional Facility, all personal property will 

be inventoried. Approved items can be retained by the offender. 

(DE # 8-1 at 5.) Westville policy also states, A[i]tems of personal property which are not 

State issued, Commissary purchased, or otherwise authorized by Westville Correctional 

Facility [are] strictly prohibited.@ (DE # 8-1 at 8.) Masterson contends that the hat was 

state issued, and therefore permitted pursuant to the facility=s rules. Respondent does not 

address Masterson=s argument and does not address how possession of the hat violated 

prison policy. 

There is no evidence that Masterson violated any IDOC policy. While the 

evidentiary bar for prison disciplinary hearings is low, there must be some evidence of 

guilt. 

[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.
4

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

and ellipsis omitted). Here, there is no evidence that any IDOC policy prohibits 

possession of blue ski hats. In fact, the evidence suggests that the hat was IDOC issued. 

While the rules state that A[i]tems brought in from other facilities are subject to the 

procedures of Westville Correctional Facility and may not be authorized@ (DE # 8-1 at 6), 

respondent does not identify any such policy that is applicable here. In the absence of any 

evidence that the hat constituted contraband property, the DHO did not have sufficient 

evidence to find Masterson guilty. 

For these reasons, the Habeas Corpus petition (DE # 1) is GRANTED. The 

respondent is ORDERED to file documentation by June 1, 2017, showing that the guilty 

finding in WCC 15-07-32 has been vacated and Elkano Masterson=s earned credit time 

restored.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 26, 2017

s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT