PITTS v. WARDEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KENDAL PITTS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-00391-JPH-TAB
)
WARDEN, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Kendal Pitts' petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks relief from his
conviction and sanctions in prison disciplinary case NCF 23-12-01469. For the
following reasons, his petition is denied, and this action is dismissed with
prejudice.
I. Overview
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); Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007); see
also Rhoiney v. Neal, 723 F. App'x 347, 348 (7th Cir. 2018). 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.
Case 1:24-cv-00391-JPH-TAB Document 12 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 563-67 (1974).
II. The Disciplinary Proceeding
On November 30, 2023, while going through Mr. Pitts' legal papers, Sgt.
K. Martin found two photographs that showed nudity and body penetration. Dkt.
7-1; dkt. 8 (ex parte). Mr. Pitts was charged with violating code B-246, possession
of offensive material. Id. Code B-246 prohibits:
Unauthorized 	possession 	and/or 	display 	of 	any 	symbol,
paraphernalia, photograph or any other item which is prohibited by
Department of Correction policies, procedures or rules or which is
offensive based upon an individual's gender, race, religion, ethnic or
personal background or which may intimidate another person based
upon their gender, race, religion, ethnic or personal background.
Dkt. 7-11.
Prison staff issued a screening report on December 1, 2023, notifying Mr.
Pitts of the charge and advising him in writing of his rights. Dkt. 7-4. He was
given a copy of the conduct report and screening report on that date. Id. He
pleaded not guilty and did not request any witness or physical evidence. Id.
The disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) held a hearing on December 4,
2023. Dkt. 7-6. At the hearing, Mr. Pitts told the DHO that he had possessed the
materials at another facility and that there was no issue there. Id. He also
submitted a written statement citing an Indiana statute and Indiana Department
of Correction (IDOC) policy, arguing that he had a right to possess photographs
of nude women. Id. at 2. Based on the conduct report, the photographs, and Mr.
Pitts' 	statement, 	the 	DHO 	found 	Mr. 	Pitts 	guilty 	and 	imposed 	a 	90-day
Case 1:24-cv-00391-JPH-TAB Document 12 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
deprivation of earned credit time. Id. On review by a supervisor, the credit-time
deprivation was reduced to 60 days. Id.
Mr. Pitts' appeals were denied, and this habeas action followed.
III. Discussion
Mr. Pitts' only claim is that there was no evidence to support the charge.
He argues that the possession of photographs of nude women is not prohibited
under Indiana law.
In a prison disciplinary proceeding, the "hearing officer's decision need
only rest on 'some evidence' logically supporting it and demonstrating that the
result is not arbitrary." Ellison, 820 F.3d at 274. The "some evidence" standard
is much more lenient than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Moffat v.
Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2002). "[T]he relevant question is whether
there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by
the disciplinary board." Hill, 472 U.S. at 455–56 (emphasis added); see also
Eichwedel v. Chandler, 696 F.3d 660, 675 (7th Cir. 2012) (same).
The "'some evidence' standard" is "a 'meager threshold.'" Jones v. Cross,
637 F.3d 841, 849 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Scruggs, 485 F.3d at 939). Once the
Court finds "some evidence" supporting the disciplinary conviction, the inquiry
ends. Id. This Court may not "reweigh the evidence underlying the hearing
officer's decision" or "look to see if other record evidence supports a contrary
finding." Rhoiney, 723 F. App'x at 348 (citing Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649,
652 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Case 1:24-cv-00391-JPH-TAB Document 12 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Code 246, possession of offensive material, prohibits the possession of any
photograph which is prohibited by IDOC policies. Dkt. 7-11 at 7. Contrary to Mr.
Pitts' argument, IDOC policy prohibits "any printed material that features
nudity" and "sexually explicit materials." Dkt. 7-3 at 25-26. The term "sexually
explicit" is defined as "a pictorial depiction of actual or simulated sex acts
including sexual intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation." Id. at 25.
Mr. Pitts does not dispute that he possessed the photographs. Mr. Pitts'
description of the photographs as simply "nude women" is disingenuous. In fact,
in one photograph, only the woman's top half is shown, and she is wearing a top.
Dkt. 8 at 2 (ex parte). What Mr. Pitts fails to acknowledge is that the
photographs graphically depict sexual acts. Id. at 1-2. (ex parte). The conduct
report and the photographs themselves constitute sufficient evidence to
support the charge. Mr. Pitts possessed offensive, sexually explicit,
photographs. There was no due process error in this regard.
To the extent Mr. Pitts further argues that the conduct report violated
IDOC policy, this does not state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 at n.2 (1991) ("state-law violations provide no basis for
federal habeas review."); Keller v. Donahue, 2008 WL 822255, 271 Fed. Appx.
531, 532 (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2008) (an inmate "has no cognizable claim arising
from the prison's application of its regulations.").
IV. Conclusion
"The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against
arbitrary action of government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary
Case 1:24-cv-00391-JPH-TAB Document 12 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
action 	in 	any 	aspect 	of 	the 	charge, 	disciplinary 	proceedings, 	or 	sanctions
involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional
infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Mr. Pitts to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, Mr. Pitts' petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.
The clerk is directed to modify the docket to reflect Mr. Pitts' current
address at the Indiana State Prison.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
KENDAL PITTS
174824
ISP - CF
INDIANA STATE PRISON - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1 Park Row Street
Michigan City, IN 46360
David A. Arthur
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
Date: 12/16/2025
Case 1:24-cv-00391-JPH-TAB Document 12 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>