HILL v. WARDEN

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THOMAS HILL, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW
)
WARDEN, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO REPORT
Thomas Hill's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks relief from his
conviction and sanctions in prison disciplinary case IYC 24-03-0693. His petition
raises a factual dispute that warrants further development.
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-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 8 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 March 7, 2024, correctional officer L. Vah charged Mr. Hill with offense
A-117, battery against a staff person, in case IYC 24-03-693. The report of
conduct states:
On 	3/7/2024 	at 	approximately 	1:40am 	I, 	Officer 	L. 	Vah 	was
requested by Sergeant T. Stanger to signal 8 North dorm for a
refusing 	housing. 	Upon 	my 	arrival 	I 	witnessed 	Incarcerated
Individual 	Hill, 	Thomas 	#179741 	DU-B21L 	stationed 	in 	the
classroom. I, Officer L. Vah, and Officer S. Obi were informed by the
dorm sergeant that the individual needed to be escorted to his
housing 	unit. 	Upon 	entering 	the 	classroom, 	we 	observed 	the
individual sitting on a chair. Officer S. Obi advised I.I Hill multiple
times to get up and surrender to the application of wrist restraints
which he refused.
Due to his passive resistance Officer S. Obi and I then secured the
individual's arms with our hands and assisted him to his feet. Once
he was on his feet, he proceeded to drop his weight on multiple
occasions preventing us from performing the escort. Due to his
active resistance Officer S. Obi and I secured the individual to the
ground to gain compliance. I.I. Hill became combative and kicked
me Officer L. Vah on my left knee. Officer S. Vargas activated First
Responders at approximately 1:42am.
Once responding staff arrived physical handling techniques were
utilized to regain compliance. Once on his feet I.I. Hill continued to
frustrate and resist staff efforts by unceasingly dropping his weight
during the escort. Once we arrived at HSU the individual was
medically evaluated and was escorted to RSH. I.I. Hill was advised
he will receive a 117A conduct report.
Dkt. 17-1.
Sergeant Stanger issued an incident report the same day, in which he
stated:
On 	3/7/2024 	at 	approximately 	1:42 	AM, 	North 	Dorm 	received
Incarcerated Individual Hill, Thomas 179741; D3-03U out of South
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Dorm. When he arrived in the dorm, he refused to go to his assigned
bed 	(D3-04U). 	When 	I 	Sergeant 	T. 	Stanger 	asked 	Incarcerated
Individual Hill the reason for his refusal, he stated that he is not
going into D-Unit because he claimed he was beet up the last time
he 	was 	in 	there. 	At 	that 	time 	that 	he 	became 	aggressive 	and
disorderly and refused all orders given. I radioed the walk staff,
Officer 	S. 	Oby 	and 	Officer 	L. 	Vah, 	to 	Signal 	8 	for 	a 	possible
disorderly.
Both walk officers arrived on unit and placed Incarcerated Individual
Hill into a mechanical restraint with the intent to escort him to D-
Unit. Due to his passive resistance Officer Vah and Officer Obi
secured the individual's arms their hands and assisted him to his
feet. Once he was on his feet, he proceeded to drop his weight on
multiple occasions preventing us from performing the escort. Due to
his 	active 	resistance 	Officer 	Vah 	and 	Officer 	Obi 	secured 	the
individual to the ground to gain compliance. Once on the ground
Incarcerated Individual Hill became combative which led to him
kicking Officer Vah. Officer S. Vargas activated First Responders.
Once responding staff arrived physical handling techniques were
utilized 	to 	regain 	compliance. 	Once 	on 	his 	feet 	Incarcerated
Individual Hill continued to frustrate and resist staff efforts by
unceasingly dropped his weight during the escort.
Once we arrived at HSU the individual was medically evaluated and
was escorted to RSH where he will be placed in a RSH Cell. Because
of his actions, Incarcerated Individual Hill will receive conduct for a
117A 	"Battery 	Against 	a 	Staff 	Person, 	Volunteer, 	Visitor 	or
Contractor" charge. Per the DELTA System, Incarcerated Individual
Hill a white male with a Class "F" Mental Health Code. He also shows
no STG affiliation. All paperwork was completed at the end of this
incident.
Dkt.17-2 at 3. (errors in original).
Mr. Hill received another conduct report based on his behavior at RHU on
March 7, in case IYC 24-03-713, in which Mr. Hill admitted to taking drugs
(buprenorphine and methamphetamine) the day before. Dkt. 17-7.
The screening officer notified Mr. Hill of the charge in IYC 24-03-693 on
March 8 and provided him with copies of the report of conduct and the screening
report. Dkt. 17-3. Mr. Hill pled not guilty and did not request any evidence or
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
witnesses. Id. Officer S. Obi provided a witness statement, which was the same
in substance as the conduct report. Dkt. 17-6.
On March 18, 2024, the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) held a hearing
in case IYC 24-03-693, during which Mr. Hill stated:
I was being from South G to North D. I was told to talk Sgt. because
I was jumped. They put me inside room and saying I can't go in there
cause I was going to get hurt. Didn't want to go through that again.
Called signal said I was refusing housing. Pick me up and slammed
me. When on stomach and started smacking against concrete. I
didn't know what was going on and that I was unconscious and
couldn't see. They were hitting me pretty hard. I tried wiggling away.
Back up, cause I didn't know what was going on cause I was
unconscious. Closed fist punching me, until they were done. I had
to see medical. Head was swollen. I have grievance put in. That is
under review. Open investigation. Seems like I'm a victim. Said that
I kicked him, but I never kicked anybody. I don't know if I was trying
to wiggle away. I was knocked out. No statement from Sgt. Stanger.
Dkt. 17-5 at 1.
The DHO considered the staff reports, Mr. Hill's statement, the staff
witness statement, and the conduct report from case IYC 24-03-713. Id. The
DHO found Mr. Hill guilty of offense A-117, battery against a staff person, and
imposed the following relevant sanctions: a 180-day credit time deprivation and
a one-step credit class demotion. Id. The DHO specifically stated:
DHB has found you guilty, due to report conduct IYC 24-03-713,
and 	staff 	witness 	statement. 	According 	to 	report, 	Ofc. 	Vah
responded to North dorm situation due to I/I Hill refusing his
housing unit. Multiple verbal orders were given towards I/I Hill to
submit to restraints, but orders were being ignored. Ofc Obi had to
apply mechanical restraints forcefully and while trying to escort I/I/
Hill towards the unit he became actively resistant. This resulted in
I/I Hill needing to be assisted to the ground to help gain compliance.
While on the ground. I/I Hill became combative and had kicked Ofc.
Vah in his knee.
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
No evidence provided that proves that I/I Hill was not resistant and
hadn't committed an act of Battery Against Staff. The DHO does not
believe I/I Hill was unconscious throughout this incident and I/I
Hill does not describe why the staff needed to utilize force within this
incident. Ofc Obi witness statement supports this charge. Conduct
IYC 24-03-000713 was considered and it details that I/I Hill had
used a controlled substance. The preponderance of evidence suggest
I/I Hill was resistant with staff and while resisting I/I Hill had kicked
a staff member. Continuance was denied, due to I/I Hill has gone
through the screening process, along with I/I Hill was requested on
3/14/2024 and hadn't shown up.
Id. (errors in original).
Mr. Hill's appeals were denied and this habeas action followed.
III. Analysis
Mr. Hill raises three arguments for habeas relief: 1) he was denied a
witness statement from Sgt. Stanger; 2) he was denied video evidence; and 3) he
did not want to enter his assigned housing because he was in fear of his life and
the officers failed to protect him. Dkt. 1. The Court finds that two claims lack
merit, while a third claim warrants further development through an evidentiary
hearing.
A. Denial of Witness
Due process affords an inmate in a disciplinary proceeding a limited right
to present "evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be
unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals." Wolff, 418 U.S.
at 566. But due process is not violated unless the inmate is deprived of an
opportunity to present material, exculpatory evidence. See Piggie v. Cotton, 344
F.3d 674, 678 (7th Cir. 2003). Evidence is exculpatory if it undermines or
contradicts the finding of guilt, see Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir.
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
2011), and it is material if disclosing it creates a "reasonable probability" of a
different result, Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766, 780–81 (7th Cir. 2008).
Mr. Hill argues that he was not allowed to obtain a witness statement from
the "main witness," Sgt. Stanger. Dkt. 1 at 4. Although Mr. Hill did not request
any witness statements at screening, Sgt. Stanger, did, in fact, provide his
statement 	through 	an 	incident 	report. 	Dkt. 	17-2. 	Sgt. 	Stanger's 	report
acknowledged Mr. Hill's assertion that he did not want to go to D-Unit because
he had been beaten in that unit before. Id. His report also affirmed, however,
that Mr. Hill kicked Officer Vah. Id. There is nothing exculpatory in Sgt. Stanger's
statement, so Mr. Hill is not entitled to relief on this claim.
B. Failure to Protect
Mr. Hill also argues that the officers who escorted him failed to protect him
when they insisted he be housed in D-unit, where he had been attacked before.
This claim does not invoke due process protections. 	See Hill, 472 U.S. at 454.
While a failure to protect claim may be viable in a civil rights action, it therefore
is not in this habeas case. 	Mr. Hill is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim.
C. Disputed Request for Video
In his second denial of evidence claim, Mr. Hill contends that he asked the
DHO for a continuance to have the DHO review the video evidence. He alleges
that the DHO denied his request for a continuance and refused to review video
evidence, saying, "you probably deserved what happened to you so I will not
review the camera on this incident." Dkt. 1 at 4.
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
DHO Smith denies making this statement at the hearing. Dkt. 17-12. The
DHO states in his affidavit, "[t]o the best of my knowledge, Hill had not requested
any witnesses and any video footage prior to his hearing." Id. (emphasis added).
This statement is not responsive to Mr. Hill's claim that his request for video
evidence was made at the hearing and was denied. The DHO does not dispute
that Mr. Hill requested a continuance. Dkt. 17-5 at 1. The video evidence might
have been exculpatory, as it is reasonable to expect that video of the incident
would show whether Mr. Hill kicked Officer Vah.
There is a factual dispute as to whether Mr. Hill asked the DHO to review
video of the incident. As in all habeas proceedings, a material factual dispute
requires a hearing (and thus the appointment of counsel under Rule 8 of the §
2254 rules). 	See Johnson v. Finnan, 467 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 2006). The
respondent could obviate the need for a hearing if the disciplinary proceedings
at issue and the corresponding sanctions are vacated. Otherwise, the Court will
set this matter for an evidentiary hearing on the question outlined above and
appoint counsel for Mr. Hill. See Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases ("If an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an
attorney to represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under
18 U.S.C. § 3006A.").
IV. Conclusion
Two of Mr. Hill's claims are denied on the merits.
The respondent has through December 10, 2025, to inform the Court
how this action should proceed on the denial of video evidence claim. If a hearing
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
is necessary, the Court will appoint counsel, schedule the hearing, and set
discovery deadlines by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
THOMAS HILL
179741
PLAINFIELD - CF
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Monika P. Talbot
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
monika.talbot@atg.in.gov
Date: 11/20/2025
Case 1:24-cv-01733-JPH-CSW Document 19 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>