Southern District grants inmate’s habeas relief in ‘rioting’ dispute

An inmate disciplined for allegedly encouraging rioting has been granted habeas relief after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana concluded there was a “total absence of evidence” to prove he committed any wrongdoing.

In September 2018, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility inmate Kurt Wertz was written up by a DOC caseworker for “encouraging, directing, commanding, coercing, rioting in violation of the IDOC’s Adult Disciplinary Code offense A-103.” Specifically, the conduct report asserted Wertz had written two letters that allegedly encouraged, directed, commanded or coerced a riot/disturbance to the order of the facility by participating in a group protest.

After affirming that he had written the letters and asking what was wrong with them, the conduct report states that Wertz was placed in mechanical restraints and escorted by yard staff to the Restricted Housing Unit. A hearing officer then found him guilty and imposed sanctions of a loss of 180 days of earned credit time and demotion in credit earning class.

Wertz appealed to the facility head and the IDOC Final Reviewing Authority, where both appeals were denied, prompting him to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District Court. There, he argued that insufficient evidence supported the disciplinary charge, that he was disciplined for exercising his First Amendment rights, and that his due process rights were violated because nothing in the IDOC Adult Disciplinary Policy gives fair warning that his actions could be construed as rioting.

“The Warden’s arguments that the hearing officer had ‘some evidence’ to find that Mr. Wertz rioted, as that term is defined in the Adult Disciplinary Process, are without merit,” Judge James R. Sweeney II wrote for the district court. “The Court concludes there is a total absence of evidence showing (1) a disturbance to facility order, and (2) that one or more persons participated in a disturbance to facility order caused by a group of two or more offenders.

“Mr. Wertz’s conduct does not fit IDOC’s own definition of rioting,” Sweeney continued. “Mr. Wertz was thus denied due process of law by IDOC authorities when they deprived him of earned credit time that extended the length of his confinement.”

The judge therefore vacated Wertz’s disciplinary conviction, granted his petition for habeas relief and ordered the restoration of his earned time credits to the level they would be had Wertz not been convicted of the offense.

The case is Kurt Wertz v. Richard Brown, 2:19-cv-00615.