Jones v. Superintendent

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: The petition is DENIED pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 1/13/2016. (lhc)(cc: Jones)

United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
JASON M. JONES,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-012 JVB

OPINION AND ORDER
Jason M. Jones, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging WCC 15-100220, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville Correctional Facility on October 15,
2015, where the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of possessing a cellular
telephone in violation of A-121. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned
credit time, but the deprivation was suspended and has not yet been imposed. (DE 1 at 1; DE 1-1
at 5.) As such, Mr. Jones has not yet lost any earned credit time as a result of this hearing.
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, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of
the duration of his confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief
that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition is DENIED pursuant to SECTION
2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If in the
future the suspended sanction is imposed, then he may file another habeas corpus petition
challenging this hearing.

SO ORDERED on January 13, 2016.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division

2