Thomas v. Duncan et al

Filing 5

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/18/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL N. THOMAS,
#B71744,
Petitioner,
vs.
STEPHEN DUNCAN
and IDOC,
Respondents.

Case No. 16-cv-0809-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner Michael N. Thomas is currently in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional
Center (“Lawrence”). On July 18, 2016, he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) to challenge the loss of nine
months of good conduct credit as a result of prison disciplinary proceedings that
allegedly violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth
Amendment. He seeks restoration of the lost credits.
The case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts.

Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the

district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petition is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
Page 1 of 5

I.

Background

Thomas is currently serving a forty year sentence on a 1997 murder
conviction. On or around October 29, 2013, he was issued a disciplinary ticket at
Lawrence for: (1) Rule 110 – impeding an investigation; (2) Rule 303 – giving false
information to an employee; and (3) Rule 404 – violating IDOC rules (Doc. 1,
p. 2).

Thomas allegedly received the ticket because he refused to sign a

confession admitting that he “physically forced himself on [an] unidentified female
employee numerous times for sex and money” at another prison (Doc. 1-1, p. 2)
(emphasis in original). Thomas was never charged or punished for this alleged
misconduct; he was instead issued a ticket when he refused to admit to it (id. at
2-3, 10). Thomas pleaded not guilty to the rule violations.
Following an allegedly unfair disciplinary hearing, Thomas was found guilty
of all three rule violations on November 11, 2013. He was punished with nine
months of segregation, nine months of C-grade status, and nine months of lost
good conduct credits. The loss of good conduct credits delayed his parole release
date by nine months. According to the Petition, Thomas was originally slated for
release on parole on June 28, 2018 (Doc. 1, p. 7). The IDOC’s public website
indicates that his projected parole date is now March 28, 2019 (id.). 1
Thomas challenged the decision of the disciplinary hearing committee on
the following due process grounds: (1) Ground 1 - prison officials failed to
disclose exculpatory information and/or materials that were relevant to the alleged
1

See also https://www.illinois.gov/idoc/Offender/Pages/InmateSearch.aspx). Bova v. U.S. Bank,
N.A., 446 F. Supp. 2d 926, 930 n. 2 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (a court may judicially notice public records

available on government websites) (collecting cases).

Page 2 of 5

rule violations; (2) Ground 2 - prison officials failed to follow internal rules and
regulations regarding the subject matter; (3) Ground 3 – prison officials used
IDOC rules and regulations in an effort to compel Thomas to serve as a witness
against himself; and (4) Ground 4 - prison officials deprived Thomas of a fair and
impartial disciplinary hearing (id. at 3). Thomas asserts that he exhausted the
prison’s internal grievance procedures and his state court remedies prior to
bringing this habeas action in federal court (id. at 3-7).
In the instant petition, Thomas reasserts these same due process
challenges to the prison disciplinary proceedings at Lawrence that resulted in his
punishment with nine months of lost good conduct credit on November 11, 2013
(id. at 7-8).

He asks this Court to enter an order expunging the disciplinary

sanctions and reinstating his nine months of good conduct credits (id. at 8).
Alternatively, he requests a new disciplinary hearing on the ticket (id. at 9).
II.

Discussion

“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his
physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is
entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from the imprisonment, his
sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 500 (1973). Section 2254 may be used to present a Fourteenth Amendment
due process challenge to a disciplinary hearing that results in the loss of good
conduct credits. See, e.g., Austin v. Pazera, 779 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2015).
Thomas’ due process challenges to the revocation of good conduct credits

Page 3 of 5

may proceed. However, the petition can only proceed against Stephen Duncan,
who is Lawrence’s warden. The proper respondent is the warden of the facility
where the prisoner is being held. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts. Thomas also named the IDOC, and
this respondent shall be dismissed as a party to the action.
III.

Disposition

The CLERK shall TERMINATE respondent IDOC as a party to the action.
This action shall now be captioned Michael N. Thomas, Petitioner v. Warden

Stephen Duncan, Respondent.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Thomas’ due process claims associated
with the revocation of good conduct credits on or around November 11, 2013,
shall PROCEED.
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent WARDEN STEPHEN DUNCAN shall
answer the petition or otherwise plead within thirty (30) days of the date this
order is entered. 2

This preliminary Order to respond does not, of course,

preclude the government from raising any objection or defense it may wish to
present. Service upon the Illinois Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Bureau,
100 West Randolph, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601 shall constitute sufficient
service.

2

The response date ordered herein is controlling. Any date that CM/ECF should generate in the
course of this litigation is a guideline only. See SDIL-EFR 3.

Page 4 of 5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this
cause is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for
further pre-trial proceedings.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that this entire matter is REFERRED to
United States Magistrate Judge Proud for disposition, as contemplated by
Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to

such a referral.
Thomas

is

ADVISED

of

his

continuing

obligation

to

keep

the

Clerk (and each opposing party) informed of any change in his whereabouts
during the pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and
not later than seven days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.
Failure to provide such notice may result in dismissal of this action. See FED. R.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2016.08.18
14:22:43 -05'00'

CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 18, 2016

United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5