MILLER v. ZATECKY
ENTRY - Petitioner's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Because Miller's habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks, the action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/27/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DARNELL C. MILLER, SR.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-464-TWP-MJD
ENTRY ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 2] is granted.
The petition of Darnell C. Miller, Sr.(“Mr. Miller”), for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging an apparent adjunct of the prison disciplinary proceeding identified as
No. ISR 11-03-0122 is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court. This
disposition is based on the following facts and circumstances:
Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court
judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed
to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall
make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified."
See Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993). A federal court may issue a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(a) only if it finds the applicant
Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.@ Id. In order to proceed, Mr. Miller must meet the “in custody” requirement
of § 2254(a). Meeting this requirement is a matter of jurisdictional significance.
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam). A[T]he inquiry into whether a
petitioner has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites for habeas review requires a
court to judge the >severity= of an actual or potential restraint on liberty.@ Poodry v.
Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 894 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 1041 (1996).
“A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a prison disciplinary
proceeding must meet two requirements: (1) he has a liberty or property interest
that the state has interfered with; and (2) the procedures he was afforded upon that
deprivation were constitutionally deficient.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939
(7th Cir. 2007). A sanction which does not constitute Acustody” cannot be challenged
in an action for habeas corpus relief. Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45
(7th Cir. 2001). If a habeas petitioner has suffered the deprivation of a protected
liberty interest the procedural protections delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 557 (1974), are applicable and the decision must be supported by “some
evidence.” Superintend., Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also
Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649,
652 (7th Cir. 2000).
In this case, Mr. Miller was sanctioned in No. ISR 12-11-112 on December 4,
2012, with the loss of visitation, job and housing privileges. These sanctions were
non-custodial. Mamone v. United States, 559 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2009); Virsnieks v.
Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2008). Because of this, a challenge to these
sanctions does not lie within the scope of an action for habeas corpus relief.
State prisoners who want to challenge their convictions, their
sentences, or administrative orders revoking good-time credits or
equivalent sentence-shortening devices, must seek habeas corpus,
because they contest the fact or duration of custody. See, e.g., Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973);
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906
(1997). State prisoners who want to raise a constitutional challenge to
any other decision, such as transfer to a new prison, administrative
segregation, exclusion from prison programs, or suspension of
privileges, must instead employ [42 U.S.C.] ' 1983 or another statute
authorizing damages or injunctions--when the decision may be
challenged at all, which under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.
Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), and Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,
96 S. Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976), will be uncommon.
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moran v. Sondalle, 218
F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Because Miller’s habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to
the relief he seeks, the action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Darnell C. Miller, Sr.
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana