Wilson v. Superintendent

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER - The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 1/23/2012. (kds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
VERNON D. WILSON, JR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.

3:11-CV-411

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Pro Se Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person In
State Custody filed by pro se Petitioner, Vernon D. Wilson, on
December 20, 2011 (DE #8).

Pursuant to RULE 4 of the RULES GOVERNING

SECTION 2254 CASES, the Court is obligated to review the petition and
dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
For the reasons set forth below, the petition (DE #8) is DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND
According to the petition and attachments, Wilson pled guilty
to multiple drug offenses in LaPorte County and was sentenced to
ten years in prison. (DE #8-1 at 14-15.)

The first five years were

to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”), and
1

the remainder of the term was to be served at the Community
Corrections Work Release Program.

(Id. at 14.)

In 2009, while he

was on work release, Wilson was charged with committing numerous
infractions, including possession of contraband and providing a
false statement to staff.

(Id.)

A hearing was held before a

Conduct Adjustment Board (“CAB”) on January 6, 2009, and Wilson was
found

guilty.

(Id.

at

14-15.)

Thereafter,

the

Community

Corrections Program petitioned the court for Wilson to be removed
from the program. (Id. at 14-16.) After a court hearing, Wilson’s
placement on work release was revoked and he was returned to IDOC
custody. (DE# 11-2 at 1-3.)
In July 2009, Wilson filed a habeas corpus petition in federal
court challenging the CAB hearing on due process grounds.

Wilson

v. Sheriff, No. 3:09-CV-322-PPS (N.D. Ind. Jul. 20, 2009). The
petition was dismissed, as the court concluded that Wilson did not
have a protected liberty interest in remaining on work release.
Id., DE# 6.
untimely.

Wilson appealed, but his appeal was dismissed as

Id., DE# 9, 17.

In October 2010, Wilson filed a motion

to recall the mandate in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, but this motion was denied.

(DE #8-1 at 1.)

In October 2011, Wilson filed another federal habeas petition
in this Court.

(DE #1.)

His original filing was stricken, as it

was unclear whether he was attempting to challenge the CAB hearing
or the subsequent court proceeding in which his work release was

2

revoked.

(DE #3.)

Wilson filed an amended petition, and although

this document is not a model of clarity either, each of the four
claims he raises pertain to alleged due process violations that
occurred in the CAB hearing.

(DE #8 at 3-4.)

DISCUSSION
The

Court

lacks

jurisdiction

successive habeas corpus petition.
147, 157 (2007).

to

hear

an

unauthorized

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.

This rule applies equally to habeas petitions

challenging prison disciplinary proceedings. Harris v. Cotton, 296
F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2002).

Regardless of whether the claims Wilson

is attempting to present are new or the same as those presented
earlier, the petition must be dismissed.

Any claims previously

presented must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

Before

Wilson can proceed with any new claims, he must obtain an order
from the Seventh Circuit authorizing him to proceed.
§ 2244(b)(3).

There is no indication from Wilson’s filing that he

has obtained such an order.
dismissed.

28 U.S.C.

Therefore, this action must be

Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir.

1996) (“A district court must dismiss a second or successive
petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless
the court of appeals has given approval for its filing.”) (emphasis
in original).

3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE #8) is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: January 23, 2012

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

4