Pannell v. Hyatte, 22-1205

DAVID PANNELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WILLIAM HYATTE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 22-1205

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

January 10, 2023

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Submitted September 2, 2022 ^[*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No 3:21-CV-951-RLM-MGG Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge.

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Indiana prisoner David pannell petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that his rights were violated in a prison disciplinary proceeding. A hearing officer found him guilty of possessing another inmate's property, costing him good-time credit. pannell claimed that he was deprived of liberty without due process because, among other reasons, he did not receive proper notice of the charge and was denied access to evidence at the hearing. The district court denied his petition, and we affirm.

Staff at Miami Correctional Facility searched Pannell's cell and on top of his property box, a correctional officer found two legal documents in another inmate's name. When asked about the papers, Pannell said he was unsure what the officer was referring to, but "per policy, we are allowed to help others with legal work." The officer issued a conduct report charging Pannell with Offense B-215, which prohibits the "unauthorized possession, destruction, alteration, damage to, or theft of property, State property, or property belonging to another person."^[1] The officer described the property as "2 papers belonging to another offender that doesn't live in the cell."

Pannell received notice of the charge and a copy of the conduct report a few days later. He pleaded not guilty and declined to waive his right to 24 hours' notice of his hearing date. He requested witness testimony from the correctional officer who conducted the cell search and from the inmate whose name was on the papers. He also requested documents including the other inmate's legal materials and the IDOC policy describing the charged offense. The requests were granted except for the other inmate's folder of legal materials, because officers had not confiscated it.

Pannell's disciplinary hearing took place a few days later. He gave a written statement, and then the charging officer testified. Pannell asked the officer questions about the cell search and the officer's awareness of certain IDOC policies. But the hearing officer disallowed some of the questions because they were duplicative of the conduct report, self-evident from the charged violation, or related to staff training. The inmate whose name was on the legal papers then testified that he was preparing a grievance appeal with Pannell's help, visited Pannell's cell to discuss the merits of his appeal, and mistakenly left behind a folder with two documents. The hearing officer found Pannell guilty of the charged offense and sanctioned him with the loss of 90-days earned credit, a demotion in credit class, and the loss of certain institutional privileges.

After exhausting the internal appeals process, Pannell filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that he was deprived of good-time credit without due process. He asserted that he did not receive proper notice of the charge, sufficient opportunity to question witnesses, or an impartial decisionmaker, and further that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. In denying the petition, the district court first concluded that, although the conduct report did not describe the allegedly prohibited papers, Pannell had not shown that the vagueness impeded his defense. Further, the court explained, Pannell was not denied access to witnesses because the quashed questions were immaterial. The court also determined that Pannell lacked evidence of the hearing officer's bias, and finally that the presence of another inmate's papers in his cell was sufficient evidence of the violation. Pannell appeals, and we review the denial of his petition de novo. Reyes v. Nurse, 38 F.4th 636, 644 (7th Cir. 2022).

Pannell has a liberty interest in earned good-time credits, so he must receive due process before they can be reduced. Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 2016). This requires 24 hours' advance notice of the charges, a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker, the right to call witnesses and present evidence, and a written explanation of the outcome. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974). Further, a guilty finding must be supported by "some evidence" in the record. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

On appeal, Pannell first takes issue with the conclusions that his rights were not violated with respect to the notice of his charges and the ability to question witnesses. But to the extent any violation occurred, Pannell does not show...