Habeas petition granted, credit time restored for federal inmate

A federal prisoner has successfully argued for his lost credit time to be restored after the Indiana Northern District Court granted his habeas petition, finding the man was entitled to notice of the factual allegations of a new charge against him at least 24 hours before a hearing, but did not receive it.

Ivory Hill, a prisoner without a lawyer, was found guilty of attempting to engage in trafficking in violation of Indiana Department of Correction policies. As a result, Hill was docked 45 days of earned credit time and subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing there was insufficient evidence and that he was not given proper notice of the charges against him.

The trafficking charge against Hill was based on allegations that he was heard on a phone call in November 2016 asking a woman named Anastasia Hill if she had received a phone call the night before. When Anastasia responded affirmatively, prison officials claimed to have heard Hill say “just tell her 60, it’s the same type that the other dude had, through the same people the last one was through AT&T.”

But after Hill filed his habeas petition, the Final Reviewing Authority from IDOC reduced his offense from attempting to engage in trafficking to a charge of attempting to engage in an unauthorized financial transaction. However, the loss of his 45 days good credit time remained the same.

“Hill was told this charging shell game was no harm, no foul because the new offense was a ‘lesser offense of your original charge and the necessary elements were included in your notice and hearing for the original case…,’” Chief Judge Philip P. Simon wrote in a Dec. 7 order. “…I’m not so sure about this.”

Though Hill raised two issues in his appeal, Simon focused on Hill’s assertion that he was not given proper notice of the charges. In agreeing with Hill’s argument on that point, Simon noted that prisoners are entitled to advance notice of the charges against them, and the requirement is satisfied “so long as the underlying basis of the charge (is) adequate to give the prisoner notice of the allegations against him.”

“While Hill was properly notified of the original charge of attempting to engage in trafficking (A-111/113) when he signed the screening report and conduct report…he was not notified of the new charge until after he received the letter from the Final Reviewing Authority on December 27, 2017,” Simon wrote.

“In fact, this change in the charge did not occur until three months after Hill filed the petition in this case,” Simon continued. “…It strikes me as odd that, after seeing Hill’s argument in this case, the Warden was able to alter the charge to something which, on the face of it, is totally different.”

The district court rejected the warden’s citation to Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 910 (7^th Cir. 2003), noting that in Northern, the modified charge related directly to the same set of facts as the original charge for which the petitioner had received notice.

“In this case, the factual basis for the new charge of attempting to engage in an unauthorized financial transaction, is very different from the factual basis for the original charge of attempting to engage in trafficking,” Simon continued. “…Because the factual basis for the two charges are so very different, Hill’s due process rights were violated because he did not receive appropriate notice of the new charge and, as a consequence, could not mount an appropriate defense against the charge.”

Therefore, the district court found that because Hill was entitled to notice of the factual allegations of the new charge at least 24 hours before the hearing but did not receive it, he was entitled to habeas corpus relief in Ivory Hill v. Warden, 3:17-cv-737. Hill’s guilty finding was thus vacated and any earned credit time he lost as a result was restored.