Love v. Superintendent
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING 4 Petition under 28 USC 2254 challenging prison disciplinary conviction. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 8/29/13. (smp)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
TONY L. LOVE,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-833 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
Tony L. Love, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging a prison disciplinary conviction. (DE 4.) On August 10, 2012, Love was found
guilty in WCC 12-08-007 of committing a violation of state law, specifically, stalking. (Id.)
Among other sanctions, he lost earned time credits and was demoted to a lower credit-earning
class. (Id.) After Love filed this petition, the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”)
decided to vacate the disciplinary conviction and remand the case for a new hearing. (DE 13-1.)
Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. As
the respondent points out, because the conviction has been vacated, there is at present nothing
for this court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prison
disciplinary conviction can be challenged in a federal habeas proceeding only if it lengthened the
duration of the petitioner’s confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp.,
442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must continue
to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date the action was initiated.”).
Love filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that the petition should not be dismissed
because he served time in disciplinary segregation and lost phone privileges as a result of the
guilty finding. (DE 19.) However, this is not a basis for keeping the petition alive. Disciplinary
segregation and loss of privileges affect the “severity” rather than the “duration” of custody.
Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001). As the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit has explained, “More restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in
the uncommon circumstance when it can be challenged at all.” Id.; see also Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 484-85 (1995) (prisoners are not entitled to due process protections unless a
change in prison conditions results in an “atypical and significant hardship” when compared to
“the ordinary incidents of prison life”).
Love also appears to argue that the prison has no authority to conduct another hearing on
the same charge. (DE 19.) To the extent he is trying to raise a double jeopardy challenge, his
argument is unavailing, since double jeopardy principles do not apply in the prison disciplinary
context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the petition will
be dismissed. However, if Love is dissatisfied with the results of the new hearing, he is free to
file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.
For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE 4) is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED on August 29, 2013.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division
2
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?