UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

KEVIN ELMORE, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 3:16-cv-178 JVB 

SUPERINTENDENT, 

Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Kevin Elmore, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison 

disciplinary hearing (IYC 15-09-0220) where a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him 

guilty of Rioting, in violation of A-103. (ECF 1 at 1.) As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss 

of 360 days earned credit time and was demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 3. Elmore 

identifies two grounds in his petition. 

 In Ground One, Elmore argues that “the Conduct Report does not fit the charge of 

Rioting, a Class A-103.” (ECF 1-1 at 3.) Elmore claims that there was not sufficient evidence to 

find him guilty of A-103, and instead he should have been charged with B-212, Assault/Battery. 

(ECF 1-1 at 2.) The imposition of prison discipline will be upheld so long as there is some 

evidence to support the finding. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455–56 (1985). “[T]he 

relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion 

reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. “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 prison disciplinary board’s decision to 
2 

revoke good time credits has some factual basis.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th 

Cir. 1999) (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). 

 Here, the DHO had sufficient evidence on which to find Elmore guilty of A-103. The 

Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) defines the A-103 offense as follows: 

Encouraging, directing, commanding, coercing or signaling one or more 

other persons to participate in a disturbance to facility order caused by a 

group of two (2) or more offenders which creates a risk of injury to persons 

or property or participating in such a disturbance or remaining in a group 

where some members of the group are participating in such a disturbance. 

Adult Disciplinary Process, Appendix I. http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-04-101_APPENDIX_IOFFENSES_6-1-2015(1).pdf. The Conduct Report charges Elmore as being a participant in a 

violent altercation that spanned the course of two hours. (ECF 1-1 at 6.) The Conduct Report 

states that “several offenders were engaged in multiple assaults that included weapons to include 

prison shanks, broom sticks, trash cans and chairs.” Id. The Conduct Report notes that “the level 

of extreme violence” resulted in offenders with “broken bones, stab wounds, lacerations and 

abrasions.” Id. The Conduct Report identifies Elmore as one of the “active participants” in the 

altercation. Id. Furthermore, Elmore is captured on video hitting another inmate with closed fists 

in the head and face. (ECF 1-1 at 9.) The evidence from the Conduct Report and video recording 

were sufficient for the DHO to determine that Elmore was guilty of “participating” in “a 
3 

disturbance to facility order caused by a group of two (2) or more offenders which creates a risk 

of injury to persons or property” in violation of A-103. 

Elmore also asserts that he should not have been found guilty because the offender he 

punched “gave a written statement on behalf of petitioner stating that they were horse playing.” 

(ECF 1-1 at 2.) However, it is not the province of this court to re-weigh the evidence considered 

by the DHO. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. It was not arbitrary or unreasonable for the DHO to 

decline to credit the statement by the assaulted offender. Ground One is therefore not a basis for 

habeas corpus relief. 

 In Ground Two, Elmore argues that his demotion from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 3 

exceeded the maximum allowable sanction pursuant to IDOC policy. 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 states, “[o]ffenders found guilty of certain egregious 

Class A offenses (Codes...103...) shall be subject to sanctions of up to a three (3)-step demotion 

in Credit Class with justification by the Hearing Officer.” Disciplinary Code for Adult 

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

101_The_Disciplinary_Code_for_Adult_Offenders___6-1-2015.pdf. Elmore was found guilty of 

A-103 and was sanctioned with a two-step demotion in Credit Class. The DHO sentenced 

Elmore within the appropriate guidelines. Therefore Elmore is not entitled to habeas corpus relief 

based on Ground Two. 
4 

If Elmore 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. Kevin Elmore is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal. 

SO ORDERED on April 18, 2017. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE