Love v. Superintendent

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 7/2/13. (smp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOSHUA LOVE,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13 CV 633

OPINION and ORDER
Joshua Love, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging
a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 1.) 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[.]” RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254
CASES.
According to the petition, Love was found guilty at the Westville Correctional
Facility of destroying state property. (DE # 1 at 1.) He was sanctioned with disciplinary
segregation, a temporary loss of phone privileges, and an order to pay $275 in
restitution. (Id.) He claims that his due process rights were violated in connection with
the hearing. (Id. at 3-4.)
A prison disciplinary sanction can only be challenged in a habeas proceeding if it
lengthens the duration of the prisoner’s confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661,
664-65 (7th Cir. 2003). A prison’s decision to house an inmate in segregation, to suspend
certain privileges, or to impose other such sanctions affects the severity, not the

duration, of confinement; thus, an inmate cannot use habeas corpus to challenge that
determination. See Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2001). The
sanctions imposed in Love’s case did not lengthen the duration of his confinement, and
he cannot challenge them in a habeas petition. Instead, “[m]ore-restrictive custody must
be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon circumstances when it can be challenged
at all.” Id. at 644; 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”).
For these reasons, the petition (DE # 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE
RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES.
SO ORDERED.

Date: July 2, 2013
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT