Cooper v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION to Dismiss by Respondent Superintendent. Petitioner Carl Cooper's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. Clerk DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 6/12/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-002-JD-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Carl Cooper, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his prison
disciplinary case CIC 16-08-17. ECF 2 at 1. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on March 27,
2017. ECF 7. Cooper did not respond to the motion and his time to do so has now passed. See N.D.
Ind. L. Cr. R. 47-2.
In his motion, Respondent argues that Cooper’s petition should be dismissed on the basis that
Cooper did not suffer any grievous loss impacting the length of his sentence, and is therefore not
entitled to habeas corpus relief. ECF 7 at 1. In the section of the habeas corpus form where Petitioner
was instructed to identify whether he lost earned credit time, Petitioner wrote only that he lost
“Going Home.” ECF 2 at 1. He was not demoted in credit class. Id. According to Respondent, while
Cooper received a Conduct Report in case CIC 16-08-17, he was never screened for the charge, he
did not receive a hearing for the charge, and he never was disciplined for the charge. ECF 8 at 1-2.
Cooper’s petition consists of a two-sentence argument. ECF 2 at 2. He argues that (i) the
IDOC told him that the Conduct Report CIC 16-08-17 does not exist; and (ii) that the Officer who
authored the Conduct Report fabricated the report to prevent him from being released. ECF 2 at 2.
A review of the records confirms that, while he was issued a Conduct Report in CIC 16-08-17,
Cooper was never disciplined for the charge. Cooper’s disciplinary records demonstrate that he
received a number of different Conduct Reports arising from his behavior on July 28, 2016 - one of
which was CIC 16-08-17. While he was later found guilty of violating IDOC policy on several of
those Conduct Reports, and was sanctioned, he was not punished as a result of the Conduct Report
he challenges in this petition. Because he has suffered no grievous injury arising from case CIC 1608-17, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. 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). Nevertheless, Cooper
remains free to challenge any of the other Conduct Reports issued on July 28, 2016, that resulted
in a loss of good time credits or demotion in credit class.
Therefore, Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF 7) is GRANTED. Cooper’s petition
(ECF 2) is DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
ENTERED: June 12, 2017
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
United States District Court
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?