UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DONALD GREVENSTUK, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-47-PPS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Donald Grevenstuk, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging

the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 15-08-232) that was held at the Indiana State Prison

on September 10, 2015. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) found him guilty of

Possessing an Electronic Device in violation of B-207 and sanctioned him with the loss

of 60 days earned credit time. Grevenstuk raises only one ground in his petition. 

He argues that there was no physical evidence presented during his hearing.

When he was screened he requested “All physical evidence.” [DE 1 at 5.] Specifically,

he wanted the electronic device (a phone charger) he was accused of having possessed. 

In a prison disciplinary hearing, an inmate has a constitutional right to present relevant,

exculpatory evidence. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Exculpatory in this

context means evidence which “directly undermines the reliability of the evidence in

the record pointing to [the prisoner’s] guilt.” Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir.

1996). Here, Grevenstuk does not explain how having the phone charger at the hearing

could have been exculpatory. But more to the point, Grevenstuk knows that it was

impossible for the phone charger to have been brought to the hearing. As the Conduct
Report explained, “Offender Grevenstuk (194695) reached on the side of his toilet and

grabbed a phone charger and flushed it down the toilet.” [DE 1 at 6.] Because the

phone charger was gone, it was not a due process violation to have not produced it at

the hearing. 

Grevenstuk goes on to argue that because the Disciplinary Hearing Officer did

not have the phone charger at the hearing, there was no evidence that he ever had a

phone charger. However, there was evidence. The Conduct Report was written by the

officer who saw him throw it in the toilet and flush it. “[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.” Webb v. Anderson, 224

F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Even a

Conduct Report alone can be sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. 

McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). Such is the case here. It was not

arbitrary for the Disciplinary Hearing Officer to have believed that the officer saw

Grevenstuk with a phone charger. That is sufficient evidence of his guilt and there is no

basis for habeas corpus relief in this case. 

For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and

the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

2
ENTERED: August 5, 2016

_s/ Philip P. Simon________________

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3