Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-1_25-cv-02617-0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PAUL MAYBERRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB
WARDEN, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Paul Mayberry has filed a Petition for a Writ of H abeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
[Filing No. 1.] He challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding at New Castle Correctional Facility
in which he was found guilty of Offense A-100, Violation of Law (for counterfeiting/forgery), and
sanctioned with a loss of 90 days of earned credit time , along with other non-custodial sanctions
not relevant to this proceeding . [ Filing No. 20-5.] For the reasons explained below, the
disciplinary proceeding did not violate Mr. Mayberry's due process rights and his habeas petition
is DENIED.
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) ; 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
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
2
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 August 11, 2025, Case Manager J. Gallatin wrote a Conduct Report in which he stated:
On [August 7, 2025 and 10:30 a.m.], I Case Manager Gallatin was conducting
programs rounds with the Restricted Housing Unit. During my rounds on the 300
range, I arrived at I/I Mayberry's cell. He was waiting for me and wanted to talk to
me about his current situation. We talked for about ten minutes and then he handed
me a few things he wanted looked into/sent out through the mail. I took them and
completed my rounds for that day.
Upon returning to my office, I reviewed the items that I/I Mayberry handed me.
O
ne of said items was an envelope lab[e]led legal mail. Said envelope was fully
sealed with the I/I's mailing information and the send address to IDOC Central
Office. On the back, there was a notation of approval in the name of "Lt. Krul".
Upon inspection of the name, I noticed that the handwriting as well as ink used for
the name appeared to be identical to that of I/I Mayb[e]rry[']s handwriting and ink
used. I took it upon myself to investigate further. I sent said item to [Unit Team
Manager ("UTM")] Clark for further investigation.
On Monday, 8/11/2025, I received the item back with confirmation from UTM
Clark from custody staff that the name in question was not written by Lt. [Krul], as
he has not been at the facility for three weeks. With this being said, it can be noted
that I/I Mayberry violated IDOC Policy #02- 01-103 Section IX, Page 14 first
paragraph: "Mail that has been submitted by an incarcerated individual shall not be
returned to the incarcerated individual for sealing after it has been inspected and
monitored. Designated facility staff shall seal all outgoing correspondence after it
has been inspected and reviewed and prior to it being delivered to the designated
mail carrier" by taking it upon himself to seal said [item] without staff inspection.
It can also be noted that I/I Mayb[e]rry violated Indiana Code 35-43-5-2
Counterfeiting; Forgery, by attempting to forge the initials of a facility staff
member to notate inspection and approval by said staff member at any attempt to
send out mail for his own benefit. In doing so, I/I Mayberry is in violation of IDOC
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
3
Disciplinary Code A100 Violation of Law. I/I Mayberry has been made aware of
this conduct.
[Filing No. 20-1.] The envelope that formed the basis for the charge against Mr. Mayberry reflects
Mr. Mayberry's handwriting on the front of an envelope marked "Legal Mail" and dated "8 -4-
2025," and "lt Krul" on the back of the envelope, which also appears to be in Mr. Mayberry's
handwriting. [Filing No. 20- 6 at 1 -2.] The Evidence Record for the envelope describes it as
"Envelope containing Legal Mail sealed w/ alleged forged initials [.] Remittance pertaining to
Legal Mail," and is signed by Case Manager J. Gallatin. [Filing No. 20-6 at 4.]
Also on August 11, 2025, UTM W. Clark completed a Notice to Lay Advocate/Witness
form in which he stated:
I, UTM W. Clark, met with facility custody staff to verify the staff signature on the
back of the envelope. Custody staff verified that the signature was not legitimate
and that Lt. Krul has left the facility approximately 3 weeks prior.
[Filing No. 20-7.]
Mr. Mayberry was notified of the charge on August 12, 2025, when he received a copy of
the Conduct Report and the Screening Report . [Filing No. 20- 1; Filing No. 20-2.] He pled not
guilty to the offense and did not request a lay advocate, any witnesses, or any physical evidence.
[Filing No. 20-2; Filing No. 20-3.]
On August 14, 2025, Mr. Mayberry submitted a Request for Interview. [Filing No. 20-4.]
He stated that his witnesses, who were correctional officers, would "say that [he] always ask[s]
staff to sign [his] mail," and that he "Don't Trust Nobody." [Filing No. 20- 4.] His request was
denied and the reviewing staff member noted "no question for witness." [Filing No. 20-4.]
A hearing was held on August 18, 2025. [Filing No. 20-5.] Mr. Mayberry appeared at the
hearing, pled not guilty, and provided the following statement: "The man signed the paper." [Filing
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
4
No. 20-5.] Th e disciplinary hearing officer ("DHO") considered Mr. Mayberry's statement, staff
reports, and physical evidence which included "copies of papers." [Filing No. 20- 5.] He found
Mr. Mayberry guilty of Offense A-100, Violation of Law, stating as the reason for his decision:
"Based on copies of envelope and remittance slip having similar color and writing." [Filing No.
20-5.] Mr. Mayberry was sanctioned with a loss of 90 days of earned credit time, along with other
non-custodial sanctions not relevant to this proceeding. [Filing No. 20-5.]
Mr. Mayberry a ppealed to the Facility Head and the Indiana Department of Correction
("IDOC") final reviewing authority, and his appeals were denied. [Filing No. 20-8; Filing No. 20-
9.] He then brought a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [F iling
No. 1.]
III.
ANALYSIS
Mr. M ayberry raises one argument in his Petitio n: that he was denied witnesses at his
disciplinary hearing. [Filing No. 1 at 5.] He states:
I requested witnesses and the denial was not explained nor was it given to me in
written notice on form 39586 per policy 02-04-101. This is a due process violation
under WOLFF.
[Filing No. 1 at 5.]
The Respondent argues that Mr. Mayberry did not request witness statements at the August
12, 2025 screening and that when he identified several correctional officers who he claims would
"say that [he] always asked staff to sign [his] mail," he "never identified the question he wanted to
ask these witnesses." [Filing No. 20 at 8 (quotation omitted).] The Respondent asserts that " [i]t
was reasonable to deny the request for statements because [Mr.] Mayberry did not provide the
questions to be asked," and notes that Mr. Mayberry did not repeat his request for witness
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
5
statements at the disciplinary hearing. [Filing No. 20 at 8.] The Respondent contends that Mr.
Mayberry maintained his defense that Lt. Krul had inspected his mail, signed the back of the
envelope, and returned the envelope to Mr. Mayberry. [Filing No. 20 at 8.] The Respondent
argues that even if Mr. Mayberry's request for statements from other officers was sufficient, the
hearing officer could have denied the request because if the officers testified as Mr. Mayberry
believed that they would have, "this information would not make it less likely that [Mr.] Mayberry
forged Lt. Krul's signature." [Filing No. 20 at 8- 9.] The Respondent notes that Lt. Krul had
stopped working at the facility before the date on the remittance slip and weeks before Mr.
Mayberry turned in the envelope, and submits a Declaration from Rebecca Cridge, a Tort Claims
Investigator and Disciplinary Hearing Appeals Officer, stating that Lt. Krul's last day working at
New Castle Correctional Facility was July 24, 2025. [Filing No. 20 a t 9; Filing No. 20- 13 at 1.]
The Respondent asserts that even if Lt. Krul had inspected the letter, he would not have returned
the envelope to Mr. Mayberry but would have taken it to the designated mail carrier. [Filing No.
20 at 10.] Finally, the Respondent argues that even if Mr. Mayberry was informed of the denial
of a witness in a method that contradicted IDOC policies, such a violation of policy does not
constitute a due process violation that would entitle Mr. Mayberry to habeas relief. [Filing No. 20
at 10-11.]
Mr. Mayberry did not file a reply.
"Inmates have a due process right to call witnesses at their disciplinary hearings when
doing so would be consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals." Piggie v. Cotton ,
344 F.3d 647, 678 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) ). When a prisoner
challenges the denial of witnesses in a prison disciplinary proceeding, it is the prison official's
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
6
burden to provide a justification for the denial. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 499 (1985); see also
Wilson v. Davis, 102 F. App'x 37, 38 (7th Cir. 2004) ("The burden is on the state to offer a rational
explanation for the denial of an inmate's request for witnesses."). Here, staff denied Mr.
Mayberry's witness request because there was "no question for witness" on his request form.
[Filing No. 20-4.] Mr. Mayberry was required to describe what the denied witnesses would have
testified to that would have aided in his defense, see Piggie, 344 F.3d at 678 (noting the petitioner
did not "explain how [the requested witness's] testimony would have helped him" and thus "the
district court properly denied relief" on the petitioner's claim that he was wrongfully denied a
witness), and he did so, [Filing No. 20- 4 (Mr. Mayberry stating that requested witnesses would
"say that [he] always ask[s] staff to sign [his] mail")].
The Respondent relies upon IDOC policy for its argument that Mr. Mayberry was required
to list the questions that he would ask the witnesses. [See, e.g., Filing No. 20 at 8 (the Respondent
arguing that "[i]t was reasonable to deny the request for statements because Mayberry did not
provide the questions to be asked").] But it is not clear whether Mr. Mayberry intended to request
witness statements or for the witnesses to testify live at the disciplinary hearing, and the only IDOC
policy related to providing questions for witnesses that is reflected in the documents submitted by
the Respondent applies only to witnesses who are not providing live testimony. [Filing No. 20-11
at 29 (Part IX.D.2.i. of IDOC's Manual of Policies and Procedures stating that witnesses who are
not providing live testimony "shall be offered the opportunity to present a written statement based
upon questions presented by the incarcerated individual at the time the incarcerated individual is
screened").]
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
7
In any event, whether or not Mr. Mayberry was actually required to provide the specific
questions that he planned to ask witnesses such that the denial of his request for witnesses was
justified, the right to call witnesses extends only to "material exculpatory evidence." Jones v.
Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2011). Evidence is exculpatory if it undermines or contradicts
the finding of guilt, see id., 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). The right is further
limited in that "prisoners do not have the right to call witnesses whose testimony would be
irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary." Pannell v. McBride , 306 F.3d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 2002) .
Here, testimony from correctional officers that Mr. Mayberry always asked staff to sign his mail
would not have created a reasonable probability of a different result. The back of the envelope
containing Mr. Mayberry's mail, which purports to reflect Lt. Krul's signature , appears to be Mr.
Mayberry's handwriting and, most significantly, Mr. Mayberry has not contradicted the
Respondent's evidence that Lt. Krul stopped working at New Castle Correctional Facility on July
24, 2025 – more than a week before the date on Mr. Mayberry's envelope and the date reflected
on his Request for Remittance. [Filing No. 20- 6 at 2- 3; Filing No. 20-13.] The fact that Mr.
Mayberry would always ask staff to sign his mail does not contradict the finding that he forged Lt.
Krul's signature in violation of Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 and, consequently, committed Offense A -
100, Violation of Law.
Further, to the extent that Mr. Mayberry argues that the Respondent did not follow IDOC
policies in informing him of the denial of his request for witnesses, that cannot form the basis for
habeas relief. Prison policies are "primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the
administration of a prison" and not "to confer rights on inmates." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
8
481-82 (
1995). Therefore, claims based on prison policy are not cognizable and do not form a
basis for habeas relief. See Rivera v. Davis, 50 F. App'x 779, 780 (7th Cir. 2002) ("A prison's
noncompliance with its internal regulations has no constitutional import – and nothing less
warrants habeas corpus review."); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 at n.2 (1991)
("[S]tate-law violations provide no basis for federal habeas relief.").
Because the expected testimony from the witnesses that Mr. Mayberry wished to call was
not reasonably likely to change the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, the Court finds that
denying his request for those witnesses to provide statements or testify did not constitute a due
process violation. Additionally, Mr. Mayberry's argument that the Respondent violated IDOC
policy by failing to properly inform him of the denial of his request for witnesses cannot form the
basis for habeas relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Mayberry's Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus. [Filing No. 1.]
IV.
C
ONCLUSION
"The
touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of
the government." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary action in any aspect of the charge,
disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and ther e
was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Mr. Mayberry to the relief he
seeks. Accordingly, Mr. Mayberry's Petition for a W rit of Habeas Corpus, [1], is DENIED and
the action DISMISSED. Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.
Date: 4/29/2026
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>
9
Distribution:
Paul Mayberry
#915471
Westville Control Unit
5501 S. 1100 W.
Westville, IN 46391
Electronic Service to:
Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Department of Correction
Case 1:25-cv-02617-JMS-TAB Document 23 Filed 04/29/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>