Barnes v. Superintendent

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 5 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant Superintendent; DISMISSING 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Robert Barnes. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 7/12/16. (cc: Robert Barnes). (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROBERT BARNES,
Petitioner,
v.

SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-133 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Barnes, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging a prison disciplinary sanction. Mr. Barnes was found guilty in Cause No. ISP16-01-0102 of security threat group (i.e., gang) activity. Among other sanctions, he lost 60
days of earned credit time. After Mr. Barnes filed this petition, the Indiana Department of
Correction (“IDOC”) vacated the sanctions and remanded the case for a new hearing.
Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. As the
respondent points out, because the sanctions have been vacated and the case remanded for
a new hearing, there is at present nothing for this court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes,
341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination
in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of
his confinement).
Mr. Barnes has filed two documents in opposition to the motion. He argues that the
petition shouldnt be dismissed because he already endured certain sanctions as a result of

the case. He appears to refer to having temporarily lost phone and commissary privileges
as a result of the guilty finding. This isn’t a basis for keeping his habeas petition alive.
These losses of privileges affect the “severity” rather than the “duration” of custody.
Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001). As the court of appeals has
explained, “[m]ore restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon
circumstance when it can be challenged at all.” Id.
Mr. Barnes also appears to argue that prison officials shouldn’t be allowed to try him
again on the same charge. To the extent he is trying to raise a double jeopardy challenge,
his argument is unavailing, because double jeopardy principles don’t apply in the prison
disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,
the court dismisses the petition. If Mr. Barnes is dissatisfied with the results of the new
hearing, he can file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.
For the reasons set forth above, the respondent’s motion (DE 5) is GRANTED, and
the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: July 12 , 2016

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court