Frohwerk v. Superintendent
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER The Court DISMISSES this petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 10/20/11. cc: petnr (kjp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DAVID FROHWERK,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Westville
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-270 PS
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner David Frohwerk, a prisoner confined at the Westville Correctional
Facility, submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
dealing with a disciplinary hearing. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, district courts are obligated to review a habeas corpus petition and to dismiss
it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief . . .” Id. This rule provides district courts with a gatekeeping
responsibility to sift through habeas corpus petitions and dismiss those petitions which
obviously lack merit.
Where prisoners lose good time credits at prison disciplinary hearings, the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees them certain procedural
protections, including (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) an opportunity to be
heard before an impartial decision maker; (3) opportunity to call witnesses and present
documentary evidence in defense when consistent with institutional safety and
correctional goals; and (4) a written statement by the fact finder of evidence relied on and
the reasons for the disciplinary action, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and
“some evidence” to support the decision of the prison disciplinary board.”
Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Frohwerk asserts in his petition that he was denied due process in the disciplinary
proceeding. According to the petition, the disciplinary hearing officer sanctioned him
with a loss of earned credit time and imposed a $45.00 restitution award (DE 1 at 1).
Frohwerk filed an administrative appeal, and the final reviewing authority affirmed the
finding of guilt, but modified the sanctions imposed by “dismiss(ing) the Time Earning
Class deprivation . . .” (DE 1 at 6).
Frohwerk’s claim that he was denied due process in a disciplinary action is
cognizable under § 2254 if he lost earned credit time or was demoted to a lower credit
time earning classification. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause provides
state prisoners a liberty interest in good time credits, and they cannot be deprived of good
time credits without due process. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Because the
loss of good time credits increases the duration of a prisoner’s confinement, habeas
corpus is the appropriate remedy for a prisoner who has been deprived of good time
credits or demoted in good time credit earning classification. Harris v. Duckworth, 909
F.2d 1057, 1058 (7th Cir. 1990).
The hearing officer imposed a loss of credit time on Frohwerk, but the petition
and its attachments establish that in response to his administrative appeal the final
reviewing authority modified the sanctions imposed by restoring his lost credit time (DE
1 at 6). The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause does not provide prisoners due
process protections from sanctions, such as restitution, that do not effect the duration of
their confinement. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995) (distinguishing between a
2
prison disciplinary sanction that will inevitably affect the duration of the inmate’s
sentence and disciplinary sanctions, such as placement in disciplinary segregation, that
do not affect the duration of his sentence). “Section 2254 is the appropriate remedy only
when the prisoner attacks the fact or duration of ‘custody.’” Sylvester v. Hanks, 140 F.3d
713, 714 (7th Cir. 1998).
In his petition, Frohwerk discusses the conditions of confinement he endured
while he was housed in a segregation unit (DE 1 at 3, ¶ 1) and the restitution imposed on
him by the hearing officer (DE 1 at 3, ¶ 4). Frohwerk’s allegations dealing with
conditions of confinement on the WCF segregation unit and the restitution award may be
cognizable in an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, but he cannot present them in a
§2254 action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 486 (1983). Habeas corpus is the sole
federal remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement
and seeks immediate or speedier release; an inmate who challenges the conditions of his
confinement must file a § 1983 action. Id. at 498-500. It appears that Frohwerk is
attempting to present his conditions of confinement claim regarding the conditions he
says he endured in segregation on this occasion in a separate action under § 1983 in
Frohwerk v. Buss, 2:11cv70 PS.
Because the Petitioner is no longer suffering any sanction that affects the duration
of his sentence he is not suffering from a sanction as a result of this disciplinary action
that is actionable under U.S.C. § 2254. Sylvester, 140 F.3d at 714 (prisoners may not use
§ 2254 to challenge DHB sanctions that do not effect the duration of their confinement).
The Petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus must therefore be denied on its face
based on Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
3
Court, which allows for the dismissal of a petition because it plainly appears from the
face of the petition and its attachments that a petitioner is not entitled to relief. See
Dellenbach v. Hanks, 76 F.3d 820, 823 (7th Cir. 1996).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this petition pursuant to Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 20, 2011
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?