LAMBERT v. EMERSON

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: March 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-02056
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ELLERY LAMBERT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-02056-JMS-KMB ) DONALD EMERSON, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER Petitioner Ellery Lambert has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that his constitutional rights were violated in a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in his conviction and the loss of earned-credit time and credit-earning class. [Filing No. 2.] The Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [Filing No. 9.] To date, Mr. Lambert has not filed a response. The Motion is ripe for the Court's review. I. LEGAL BACKGROUND Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits or of credit-earning class without due process. Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 2016). The due process requirement is satisfied with: 1) the issuance of at least 24 hours advance written notice of the charge; 2) a limited opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence to an impartial decision- maker; 3) a written statement articulating the reasons for the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it; and 4) "some evidence in the record" to support the finding of guilt. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974). II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 14, 2023, Officer V. Afun wrote a Conduct Report charging Mr. Lambert with Offense 106, Possession of Contraband and a Dangerous Weapon. [Filing No. 9-1 at 1.] The Conduct Report stated as follows: On 12/4/23 at approximately 730am E-squad, Custody and Unit team went to West dorm and started to search L-Unit first. Officer V. Afun was searching I.I. Ellery Lambert 269645 property and found 2 altered gray shirts, jacket and improvised weapon. [Filing No. 9-1 at 1.] Officer Afun later wrote a Witness Statement elaborating on the offense, which stated: On 12/4/23, I Officer V. Afun was part of the search team that shook down HUW L & M units and HUC N & O units. The search begun in L unit after which we proceeded into M unit. While searching I/I Ellery, Lambert #269645 property in M-31 cell, I came across a brown jacket that was laying on his bunk. While going through the pockets of the jacket, I discovered a metal slender object with a black plastic handle. This in my experience as a correctional officer with IDOC is an improvised weapon. I also came across altered gray sweatshirt on the same bunk. This bunk is the bunk that I/I Ellery is assigned to and as such I charged with possession of such items. [Filing No. 9-2 at 1.] Mr. Lambert did not request witnesses but did request security footage, which was summarized by a prison official and corroborated Officer Afun's account. [Filing No. 9-8.] At Mr. Lambert's disciplinary hearing, he testified that "[the] [s]tuff is not mine. I wouldn't possess anything like that. I'll be going home soon. Never took jacket or anything like that." [Filing No. 9-7 at 1.] He was convicted and sanctioned with a loss of 180 days of earned-credit time and a demotion in one credit-earning class. [Filing No. 9-7 at 1.] Mr. Lambert appealed the decision to the Facility Head on January 30, 2024, but before receiving the result, Mr. Lambert also filed a final appeal. [Filing No. 9-11 at 2.] Mr. Lambert was informed by the Appeal Review Officer that a final appeal was premature because the results of the facility-level appeal had not concluded. [Filing No. 9-11 at 2.] The Appeal Review Officer informed Mr. Lambert that he could resubmit his final appeal after the facility-level appeal concluded. [Filing No. 9-11 at 2.] After the facility-level appeal was denied, Mr. Lambert did not file a final appeal. [Filing No. 9-11 at 3.]

Mr. Lambert later filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during his disciplinary hearing. [Filing No. 2.] The Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss and argues that Mr. Lambert did not exhaust his administrative remedies and has not shown cause and prejudice for failure to do so. [Filing No. 9; Filing No. 10.] III. DISCUSSION In Indiana, only the issues raised in a timely appeal to the Facility Head and then to the Final Reviewing Authority may be raised in a subsequent petition for writ of habeas corpus unless a showing of cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Washington v. Boughton, 884 F.3d 692, 698 (7th Cir. 2018). "[T]he existence of cause for a procedural default must ordinarily turn on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded compliance with the procedural rule. . . . This normally means petitioner must show[ ] that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available, or that some interference by officials[ ] . . . made compliance impracticable." Love v. Vanihel, 73 F.4th 439, 446–47 (7th Cir. 2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]o establish prejudice, the prisoner must show not merely a

substantial federal claim, such that the errors at trial created a possibility of prejudice, but rather that the constitutional violation worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage." Id. at 448 (citation omitted and emphasis removed). Mr. Lambert filed a final appeal before his facility-level appeal concluded, which was against IDOC policy. [Filing No. 9-11] at 2-3.] He was informed that he could re-file his final appeal once the facility-level appeal concluded, but he did not do so. [Filing No. 9-11] at 2-3.] Mr. Lambert has not filed a response brief attempting to show cause or prejudice. And, in any event, the Conduct Report "alone" can "provide[] 'some evidence’ for the . . . decision." McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999). There is no indication that Mr. Lambert's due process rights were violated in his disciplinary decision. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, [9], is GRANTED. Final judgment shall issue by separate order.

Date: 3/3/2025 : Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge ‘United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: ELLERY LAMBERT 269645 PLAINFIELD - CF PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant — Court Only Marjorie H. Lawyer-Smith INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL marjorie.lawyer-smith@atg.in.gov