Davis v. Superintendent
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER granting the motion to dismiss 11 and dismissing the petition pursuant to 28:2254. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 10/1/2012. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
STEVIE DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:12 CV 121
OPINION and ORDER
Stevie Davis, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas corpus petition
challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 9.) On August 9, 2011, a hearing
officer at Miami Correctional Facility (“MCF”) found Davis guilty of attempting or
conspiring with another to commit trafficking in violation of disciplinary rules A111
and A113. (DE # 12-1.) He received a written reprimand and lost telephone and
commissary privileges for 30 days. (Id.) The hearing officer also recommended that
Davis serve six months in disciplinary segregation, lose 30 days of earned time credits,
and be demoted to a lower credit-earning class, but all three of these sanctions were
suspended. (Id.) Under the Indiana Department of Correction Adult Disciplinary
Procedures (“ADP”), a suspended sanction can only remain in effect for six months,
after which time it becomes unenforceable. (DE # 12-5 at 2.) More than six months have
passed since the suspended sanctions were imposed, and they have not been enforced.
(See DE # 12-2.)
Based on the above, respondent moves to dismiss the petition.1 (DE # 11.) As
respondent points out, the disciplinary proceeding at issue did not lengthen Davis’s
sentence, nor could it, since the suspended sanctions pertaining to his earned time
credits have expired. Because the disciplinary proceeding did not lengthen his sentence,
Davis cannot challenge it in a habeas petition. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664
(7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge disciplinary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
only when the punishment imposed lengthens the duration of his confinement);
Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001) (only a disciplinary sanction
that affects the fact or duration of custody can be challenged under 28 U.S.C. § 2254).
Instead, the sanctions imposed by the hearing officer affected the severity rather than
the duration of Davis’s custody. As the Seventh Circuit has instructed, “More restrictive
custody must be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon circumstances when it can
be challenged at all.” Montgomery, 262 F.3d at 644.
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss (DE # 11) is GRANTED,
and the petition (DE # 9) is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: October 1, 2012
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More than 45 days have passed since the motion was filed, and Davis has not filed
a response or objection.
1
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?