Johnson v. Superintendent
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER denying the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 10/30/2012. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JAMES J. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 3:12cv575
OPINION AND ORDER
James J. Johnson, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison
disciplinary proceeding which was held on August 13, 2012, at the Miami Correctional Facility. At
that hearing (MCF 12-08-0016), the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of
Physically Resisting in violation B-235. Mr. Johnson was sentenced to 30 days in segregation, 30
days commissary restriction, and demoted from credit class I to credit class II. He lists four grounds
in his petition.
First, he argues that as a result of being placed in segregation, he was unable to access the
law library to prepare for two state court proceedings. Even if true, this is irrelevant in this habeas
corpus proceeding. “[H]abeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the
fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release” Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 481 (1994). It is not a method for challenging the consequences of being placed in
segregation. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2000) (“State prisoners who want
to raise a constitutional challenge to any other decision, such as transfer to a new prison,
administrative segregation, exclusion from prison programs, or suspension of privileges, must
instead employ § 1983 or another statute authorizing damages or injunctions . . ..”) Therefore, the
first ground is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.
Second, Mr. Johnson argues that he was subjected to double jeopardy when his visitation was
limited on August 16, 2012. Double jeopardy is not applicable because a prison disciplinary
proceeding does not constitute “prosecution” for double jeopardy purposes. See Meeks v. McBride,
81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that an acquittal in an earlier prison disciplinary hearing
did not bar a subsequent hearing to consider the very same charge); and Garrity v. Fiedler, 41 F.3d
1150, 1152-53 (7th Cir. 1994) (holding that prison disciplinary proceedings do not bar a subsequent
criminal prosecution for the same offense). Moreover, Mr. Johnson was not even entitled to due
process before his visitation was restricted. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995)
(“Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected
parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law.”) Therefore, the second ground is not a basis
for habeas corpus relief.
Third, Mr. Johnson seeks an injunction to change the prison’s segregation policies. As
previously explained, such injunctive relief in not available in a habeas corpus proceeding. See
Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the third ground is not a basis for
habeas corpus relief.
Finally, Mr. Johnson argues that several prison officials were personally responsible for
violating his clearly established rights when they placed him in segregation and denied him access
to the law library. In response, he seeks monetary damages. Again, such claims are not relevant in
a habeas corpus proceeding and monetary damages are not possible in this proceeding. Id. Therefore,
the fourth ground is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.
2
Mr. Johnson has not provided any basis for finding that his “conviction violated the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991).
Because he has not demonstrated any due process violations in relation to his having been found
guilty of Physically Resisting, habeas corpus relief must be denied. For the foregoing reasons, the
habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4.
Entered: October 30, 2012
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court
3
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?