Till v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 1/31/2017. (cc: Petitioner)(lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
THOMAS W. TILL,
CAUSE NO. 2:17-CV-42 WL
OPINION AND ORDER
Thomas W. Till, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging ISP 16-10-053,
a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Indiana State Prison on October 14, 2016, where a
disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of asserting and/or filing a false lien in violation of A122. As a result, he was sanctioned with a loss of telephone privileges, 120 days in disciplinary
segregation, the loss of 120 days earned credit time and a demotion from credit class 2 to credit class
3. (DE 1 at 1, 26.) However, he did not lose any earned credit time or demotion in credit class as a
result of this hearing because the sanctions were suspended and have not yet been imposed. (Id.)
A prison disciplinary action can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it
results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th
Cir. 2003). Here, the suspended sentence was not imposed, and so the disciplinary action has not
increased his duration of confinement. Because there was no increase in the length of confinement,
Till cannot receive relief based on this habeas corpus claim. Because there is no relief that he can
obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied. If in the future this suspended
sanction is imposed, then he may file another habeas corpus petition challenging it.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to SECTION 2254
HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ENTERED: January 31, 2017
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court
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?