1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

Charles E. Dent, 

 Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 3:16-cv-365 JVB 

Superintendent, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Charles E. Dent, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison 

disciplinary hearing (ISP 16-04-125) where a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him 

guilty of Assault/Battery in violation of A-102. ECF 1-1 at 3. As a result, he was sanctioned with 

the loss of 30 days earned credit time. Dent identifies three grounds in his petition. 

In each ground, Dent alleges violations of Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) 

policy. However, the IDOC’s failure to follow its own policy does not arise to the level of a 

constitutional violation. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“state-law violations 

provide no basis for federal habeas relief”); Keller v. Donahue, 271 F. App’x 531, 532 (7th Cir. 

2008) (finding that inmate’s claim that prison failed to follow internal policies had “no bearing 

on his right to due process”). Nevertheless, the court will analyze the claims to determine 

whether any of them might present a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. 

 Grounds One and Two are related. Dent argues that the DHO did not watch all of the 

video he requested and then did not properly explain why. (ECF 1 at 2.) Dent was seen on video 

fighting with another inmate. (ECF 1-1 at 1.) The reporting officer stated, “[b]oth offenders had 
2 

items in there (sic) hands and were using them while fighting.” (ECF 1-1 at 1 (emphasis in 

original).) Dent argues that the video immediately preceding that segment would have shown 

that it was the other inmate who attacked him. (ECF 1 at 2.) 

 An inmate has a constitutional right to present relevant, exculpatory evidence during a 

prison disciplinary hearing which extends the duration of his confinement. Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); Rasheed-Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992). 

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). However, “[p]risons may discipline inmates who engage in violence even if the 

inmate did so to protect himself.” Keller v. Cross, 603 F. App’x 488, 489 (7th Cir. 2015). 

“[I]nmates do not have a constitutional right to raise self-defense as a defense in the context of 

prison disciplinary proceedings.” Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 848 (7th Cir. 2011). Therefore, 

evidence that Dent acted in self-defense would not have been relevant or exculpatory to the 

question of whether he committed a battery upon another inmate. Neither did he have a 

constitutional right to a written explanation about why that portion of the video was not 

reviewed. See White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 768 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Baxter v. 

Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976), warns the court of appeals not to add to the procedures 

required by Wolff, which, Baxter held, represents a balance of interests that should not be further 

adjusted in favor of prisoners.”). Therefore, neither Grounds One nor Two are a basis for habeas 

corpus relief. 

In Ground Three, Dent argues that he was not given a lay advocate during his hearing. 

(ECF 1 at 2.) However, a lay advocate is only required when the inmate is illiterate or the issues 

are complex. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570 (1974); see also Miller v. Duckworth, 963 
3 

F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1992), and Wilson-El v. Finnan, 263 Fed. Appx. 503 (7th Cir. 2008). As 

reflected by his petition and the attached documents, Dent is not illiterate. Neither was this a 

complex case. Dent acknowledges that he was fighting, but argued it was self-defense. 

Therefore, Ground Three is not a basis for habeas corpus relief. 

 If Dent wants to appeal this decision, 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 the 

court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in 

good faith. 

 For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to 

enter judgment and close this case. Charles E. Dent is DENIED leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. 

SO ORDERED on April 24, 2017. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE