Lauderdale v. Superintendent
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Respondent's 7 MOTION to Dismiss; DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to sendEric Lauderdale a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint Packet. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/22/2013. (cc: Opinion and Order, and blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint Packet to Eric Lauderdale) ***Civil Case Terminated (lyb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ERIC LAUDERDALE,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-127
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody filed by Eric Lauderdale on February 22, 2013, and
the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent on July 3, 2013. For
the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss (DE 7) is
GRANTED, the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is
DIRECTED to send Eric Lauderdale a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint
Packet.
BACKGROUND
Eric Lauderdale, a pro se prisoner, is attempting to challenge
the prison disciplinary proceeding (MCF 12-08-0019) held by the
Miami Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) on
August 14, 2012. Lauderdale was found guilty of possessing an
electronic device in violation of B-207. He was punished with the
loss of 90 days earned credit time and demoted from credit class I
to II. In addition, he was given a written reprimand, a suspended
30 day placement in disciplinary segregation, and a 1 month loss of
telephone and commissary privileges. In addition, as a result of
having been found guilty, Lauderdale was fired from his job and
consequently lost the opportunity to earn 180 days earned credit
time. On appeal, the superintendent suspended the 90 day loss of
earned credit time and the demotion from credit class I to II.
DISCUSSION
The motion to dismiss argues that because the deadline for
imposing the suspended loss of earned credit time and the suspended
demotion in credit class has passed, Lauderdale has not had the
duration of his confinement extended as a result of this prison
disciplinary proceeding. Lauderdale understands that his suspended
sentences can never be imposed. However, he argues that because of
this
hearing,
he
lost
his
prison
job
and
thereby
lost
the
opportunity to earn 180 days of earned credit time.
Nevertheless,
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, this prison disciplinary
proceeding is not extending the duration of his confinement. It is
true that he has been deprived of the chance to shorten his
sentence, but that collateral consequence cannot be challenged in
a habeas corpus proceeding. Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 641 (7th
2
Cir. 2004) (Holding that the loss of an inmate’s job, housing
assignment,
reputation,
and
access
to
prison
programs
were
insufficient collateral consequences to permit jurisdiction over a
prison disciplinary habeas corpus petition which did not result in
the loss of earned credit time.)
State prisoners who want to challenge their convictions,
their sentences, or administrative orders revoking
good-time credits or equivalent sentence-shortening
devices, must seek habeas corpus, because they contest
the fact or duration of custody. 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 – when the decision may be challenged at all,
which under Sandin v. Conner [515 U.S. 472 (1995)] will
be uncommon.
Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).
Because Lauderdale has expressed a desire to challenge events
which can only be challenged in a prisoner civil rights case (if at
all), the court will direct the clerk to send him the paperwork to
file such a case if he chooses to do so. However, Lauderdale should
not infer that by doing so the court has expressed any opinion as
to the merits of such a claim nor the wisdom of filing such a case.
Furthermore, he is cautioned that if he files a prisoner civil
rights case, he will have to pay the filing fee either in advance
or over time – and that if the case is found to be meritless, he
may incur a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion (DE 7) is GRANTED,
the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to send
Eric Lauderdale a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint Packet.
DATED: August 22, 2013
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
4
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?