Whitney v. Lemon et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 6/17/2015. (lhc)(cc: Pla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ADAM WHITNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRUCE LEMON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15 CV 201

OPINION AND ORDER
Adam Whitney, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(DE #1.) “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of
a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a
complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a
motion under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). “In
order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived

him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of
state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
Here, Whitney is currently incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison. He alleges
that false disciplinary charges were filed against him. He further claims that he was
denied due process during his prison disciplinary hearing as well as his subsequent
appeals and grievances. In case number ISP 15-01-0039, he was found guilty of
possessing a cell phone. He argues that he is not guilty of that charge, but this is not the
proper proceeding to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing board’s finding because
“habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or
duration of his confinement . . ..” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994).
In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), the United States Supreme Court made
clear that the principles of Heck also apply to prison disciplinary cases.
In Heck, this Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages is
not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has previously been invalidated.
Edwards, 520 U.S. at 643 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, Whitney has not
even alleged that the finding of guilt has been invalidated. Because a finding of liability
in this case would inherently undermine the validity of his disciplinary hearing, he may
not proceed with these claims until that finding is overturned on administrative appeal
or in a habeas corpus proceeding.

2

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 17, 2015

s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT